From henk at amsterdamned.org Sat Jul 1 01:01:00 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat Jul 1 01:01:02 2006 Subject: [blml] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: *3m 3C or 3D [minor] *3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From henk at amsterdamned.org Sat Jul 1 01:01:00 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat Jul 1 01:01:02 2006 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for July 2006 Posts From ----- ---- From mandache at free.fr Sat Jul 1 09:42:04 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Sat Jul 1 09:32:29 2006 Subject: [blml] claim Message-ID: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> Hello all, About one year ago, among French TDs there has been much ado about the following case. I think no one submitted it to the list, sorry if I'm wrong. AQJ95 A62 AK8 86 2 X7643 Q873 K4 9754 J2 5432 QJ97 K8 JX95 QX63 AKX 3NT by South, OL: C4 1st trick: C4, 6, J, A 2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K 3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 4th: HX, 7, 6, 4 5th: H5, 8, A, D2 6th: S5, 3, K, 2 Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four tricks in spades and I have the DQ." TD! Regards, Manuela From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Jul 1 10:58:13 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat Jul 1 10:51:06 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060701105715.020817e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:42 1/07/2006 +0200, Manuela Mandache wrote: > AQJ95 > A62 > AK8 > 86 >2 X7643 >Q873 K4 >9754 J2 >5432 QJ97 > K8 > JX95 > QX63 > AKX >3NT by South, OL: C4 >1st trick: C4, 6, J, A >2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K >3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 >4th: HX, 7, 6, 4 >5th: H5, 8, A, D2 >6th: S5, 3, K, 2 >Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four tricks in >spades and I have the DQ." >TD! Let declarer play the cards in the order he said. Four rounds of spades, oops, lose two tricks. From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 1 10:51:56 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jul 1 10:53:27 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000001c69ceb$9b839fa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Manuela Mandache > About one year ago, among French TDs there has been much ado > about the following case. > I think no one submitted it to the list, sorry if I'm wrong. > > AQJ95 > A62 > AK8 > 86 > 2 X7643 > Q873 K4 > 9754 J2 > 5432 QJ97 > K8 > JX95 > QX63 > AKX > 3NT by South, OL: C4 > 1st trick: C4, 6, J, A > 2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K > 3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 > 4th: HX, 7, 6, 4 > 5th: H5, 8, A, D2 > 6th: S5, 3, K, 2 > Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four tricks > in > spades and I have the DQ." > TD! I can't remember having seen this one so I guess you are right, According to his statement he will play all his remaining spades (from top), apparently having forgotten that SX is still out. So I should rule contract just made (one trick in Hearts, one in Spades and two in Clubs to the defense). To those who claim that it is "irrational" to run the last spade I shall argue that Declarer has already demonstrated his "irrational" playing by completely overlooking the possibility for a fourth trick in Diamonds assuming that the Spades will run. He shall have no sympathy from me. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 1 11:43:16 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jul 1 11:44:48 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060701105715.020817e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c69cf2$c7dfa7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > AQJ95 > > A62 > > AK8 > > 86 > >2 X7643 > >Q873 K4 > >9754 J2 > >5432 QJ97 > > K8 > > JX95 > > QX63 > > AKX > >3NT by South, OL: C4 > >1st trick: C4, 6, J, A > >2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K > >3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 > >4th: HX, 7, 6, 4 > >5th: H5, 8, A, D2 > >6th: S5, 3, K, 2 > >Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four > tricks in > >spades and I have the DQ." > >TD! > > Let declarer play the cards in the order he said. Four rounds of spades, > oops, lose two tricks. Three I should say? Contract just made. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Jul 1 13:35:30 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Sat Jul 1 13:28:19 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000101c69cf2$c7dfa7e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060701105715.020817e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060701133209.020912c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:43 1/07/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > > AQJ95 > > > A62 > > > AK8 > > > 86 > > >2 X7643 > > >Q873 K4 > > >9754 J2 > > >5432 QJ97 > > > K8 > > > JX95 > > > QX63 > > > AKX > > >3NT by South, OL: C4 > > >1st trick: C4, 6, J, A > > >2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K > > >3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 > > >4th: HX, 7, 6, 4 > > >5th: H5, 8, A, D2 > > >6th: S5, 3, K, 2 > > >Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four > > tricks in > > >spades and I have the DQ." > > >TD! > > > > Let declarer play the cards in the order he said. Four rounds of spades, > > oops, lose two tricks. > >Three I should say? Contract just made. Sorry, three. Spent one full week doing calculations, filling in for a heat-struck computer with PIBCK problems ; guess I've got an overload ;-) From john at asimere.com Sat Jul 1 14:46:59 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat Jul 1 14:48:26 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <002001c69d0c$714d5660$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuela Mandache" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 8:42 AM Subject: [blml] claim Hello all, About one year ago, among French TDs there has been much ado about the following case. I think no one submitted it to the list, sorry if I'm wrong. AQJ95 A62 AK8 86 2 X7643 Q873 K4 9754 J2 5432 QJ97 K8 JX95 QX63 AKX 3NT by South, OL: C4 1st trick: C4, 6, J, A 2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K 3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 4th: HX, 7, 6, 4 5th: H5, 8, A, D2 6th: S5, 3, K, 2 Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four tricks in spades and I have the DQ." TD! Ye Gods, outlook express sux0rs - it won't even put the chevrons in. Irrational. He'll spot that LHO discards, and when the the diamonds come good, he has 12 tricks. On a different layout I may not have permitted him to pick up the D suit. Ruling a disputed claim. The primary job is to restore equity, but with dubious points in favour of NOs. There is nothing dubious here. Any TD going the other route is absurd. regards John Regards, Manuela _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jrhind at therock.bm Sat Jul 1 15:37:06 2006 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Sat Jul 1 15:38:50 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <002001c69d0c$714d5660$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: > Hello all, > > About one year ago, among French TDs there has been much ado about the > following > case. I think no one submitted it to the list, sorry if I'm wrong. > > AQJ95 > A62 > AK8 > 86 > 2 X7643 > Q873 K4 > 9754 J2 > 5432 QJ97 > K8 > JX95 > QX63 > AKX > 3NT by South, OL: C4 > 1st trick: C4, 6, J, A > 2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K > 3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 > 4th: HX, 7, 6, 4 > 5th: H5, 8, A, D2 > 6th: S5, 3, K, 2 > Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four tricks > in > spades and I have the DQ." > TD! I give declarer the remaining tricks. He will see the 1-5 spade break and not lose a spade trick and the DJ drops. Jack From mandache at free.fr Sat Jul 1 17:07:13 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Sat Jul 1 16:57:36 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1151766433.44a68fa1519b3@imp3-g19.free.fr> Selon Jack Rhind : > > Hello all, > > > > About one year ago, among French TDs there has been much ado about the > > following > > case. I think no one submitted it to the list, sorry if I'm wrong. > > > > AQJ95 > > A62 > > AK8 > > 86 > > 2 X7643 > > Q873 K4 > > 9754 J2 > > 5432 QJ97 > > K8 > > JX95 > > QX63 > > AKX > > 3NT by South, OL: C4 > > 1st trick: C4, 6, J, A > > 2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K > > 3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 > > 4th: HX, 7, 6, 4 > > 5th: H5, 8, A, D2 > > 6th: S5, 3, K, 2 > > Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four tricks > > in > > spades and I have the DQ." > > TD! > > > I give declarer the remaining tricks. He will see the 1-5 spade break and > not lose a spade trick and the DJ drops. > > Jack I don't speak (write, as it is) English well enough! I have improperly translated "les piques viennent" by "four tricks in spades". At the table, it was quite clear that South had miscounted the spades and was sure that once each opp had one, dummy's suit will provide the four remaining tricks. Does this make you change your mind? Best, Manuela From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jul 1 17:57:26 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jul 1 17:58:56 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <1151766433.44a68fa1519b3@imp3-g19.free.fr> References: <1151766433.44a68fa1519b3@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: On Jul 1, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Manuela Mandache wrote: > I don't speak (write, as it is) English well enough! I have improperly > translated "les piques viennent" by "four tricks in spades". At the > table, it > was quite clear that South had miscounted the spades and was sure > that once > each opp had one, dummy's suit will provide the four remaining > tricks. Does > this make you change your mind? In English, if I'm not mistaken, "the spades are running." Doesn't matter. Once he plays the second spade trick, he will see the bad break. It would *not* be normal - it would be crazy - to keep playing on spades when you *know* that will lose at least one trick, and probably more. No, any sane bridge player will take his known top spades, switch to diamonds, and get his twelfth trick in that suit when the Jack falls. The law does *not* say that a claimant must be held to his stated line of play when that line produces evidence, before it's too late, that it will fail, and there is a normal alternative line. Hm. Is "sane bridge player" an oxymoron? ;-) From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 1 18:53:16 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jul 1 18:54:49 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c69d2e$da6275a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > I don't speak (write, as it is) English well enough! I have improperly > > translated "les piques viennent" by "four tricks in spades". At the > > table, it > > was quite clear that South had miscounted the spades and was sure > > that once > > each opp had one, dummy's suit will provide the four remaining > > tricks. Does > > this make you change your mind? > > In English, if I'm not mistaken, "the spades are running." Doesn't > matter. Once he plays the second spade trick, he will see the bad > break. It would *not* be normal - it would be crazy - to keep playing > on spades when you *know* that will lose at least one trick, and > probably more. No, any sane bridge player will take his known top > spades, switch to diamonds, and get his twelfth trick in that suit > when the Jack falls. > > The law does *not* say that a claimant must be held to his stated > line of play when that line produces evidence, before it's too late, > that it will fail, and there is a normal alternative line. > > Hm. Is "sane bridge player" an oxymoron? ;-) According to the latest evidence (included in your comment above) Declarer had miscalculated the spades and was convinced that the spades would run when neither defender was void originally. A question is if he shall be allowed to notice that the ten has not shown up after four spade tricks and then switch to Diamonds or if he shall be held to his claim statement and be forced to run the last spade. I tend to rule that having miscalculated the spades it is not irrational for him to overlook that the ten has not shown up during the first four tricks and still believe that the last spade is good; he can for instance very well have thought that the ten must have been the spade discarded by West in the first spade trick. Anyway declarer must discard two cards on the third and fourth spade, and with his demonstrated lack of interest for four tricks in Diamonds it is not irrational for him to discard one small Diamond together with his remaining either heart or club. Any of these three cards has potential to become a winner, so I would not in any case give him the twelfth trick with the claim statement he has presented. My ruling is still contract just made with nine tricks. However I am willing to discuss eleven tricks but definitely not twelve. Regards Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Jul 1 18:53:08 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Sat Jul 1 18:57:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Chevrons and OE References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <002001c69d0c$714d5660$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001c01c69d2e$d551c480$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "John Probst" < > > Ye Gods, outlook express sux0rs - it won't even put the chevrons in. > A continuing annoyance for me also. About 10 percent of the time I don't get the chevrons for quoted material in a reply, despite having specified them. Does anyone have a solution? Other than dumping OE, that is. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From john at asimere.com Sat Jul 1 20:41:37 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat Jul 1 20:43:04 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151766433.44a68fa1519b3@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000c01c69d3d$fc1e2e00$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuela Mandache" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim Selon Jack Rhind : > > Hello all, > > > > About one year ago, among French TDs there has been much ado about the > > following > > case. I think no one submitted it to the list, sorry if I'm wrong. > > > > AQJ95 > > A62 > > AK8 > > 86 > > 2 X7643 > > Q873 K4 > > 9754 J2 > > 5432 QJ97 > > K8 > > JX95 > > QX63 > > AKX > > 3NT by South, OL: C4 > > 1st trick: C4, 6, J, A > > 2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K > > 3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 > > 4th: HX, 7, 6, 4 > > 5th: H5, 8, A, D2 > > 6th: S5, 3, K, 2 > > Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four > > tricks > > in > > spades and I have the DQ." > > TD! > > > I give declarer the remaining tricks. He will see the 1-5 spade break and > not lose a spade trick and the DJ drops. > > Jack I don't speak (write, as it is) English well enough! I have improperly translated "les piques viennent" "The spades are running" or even "Running the spades". Now we are into the realms of the careless. Whereas previously i'd have ruled 12 tricks without much reflection, I know have to consider the point that he won't notice the spade 10 is missing.. This is a doubtful point and so I rule in favour of the NOs. By the way Manuela, the single character for 10 in English is usually 'T' not 'X', although I must admit that "X" makes a lot of sense. Back to Agincourt; 1415. I was telling you about the pig fat and the sheep fat and the rats and the bowstrings; well the English V-sign comes from here too. As you know, in war, it is more sensible to maim your opponent than to kill him, as the other side then has to use its resources to look after the injured person, rather than just leaving him dead on the field of battle. So when the French archers caught an Englush longbowman, they chopped off the index and middle fingers of his pulling hand, so that he would no longer be able to pull his bow. So the English longbowman used to show the French archers their bowfingers in the well known English salute. "allez vous e*****r sales Francais, nous avons les doigts encore" - so the English V-sign is specifically designed for us to tell the French what we think of them. More Francophobia soon :) best regards John by "four tricks in spades". At the table, it was quite clear that South had miscounted the spades and was sure that once each opp had one, dummy's suit will provide the four remaining tricks. Does this make you change your mind? Best, Manuela _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 2 09:28:08 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jul 2 09:37:38 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151766433.44a68fa1519b3@imp3-g19.free.fr> <000c01c69d3d$fc1e2e00$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <006a01c69da9$299ac300$059f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > > so the English > V-sign is specifically designed for us to tell > the French what we think of them. More > Francophobia soon :) << +=+ It will be a consolation to the French that their partly-ageing football (soccer) team has just now demonstrated itself to be a far better team than the English national team and to have the quality of world champions. Their win over Brazil was top class and I expect another exciting match when they play Germany. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Jul 2 12:59:28 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun Jul 2 13:01:14 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <006a01c69da9$299ac300$059f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <1151766433.44a68fa1519b3@imp3-g19.free.fr> <000c01c69d3d$fc1e2e00$0701a8c0@john> <006a01c69da9$299ac300$059f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <3l9fa25e3l5sd27p1tu4ou6hi641k1im72@meadows.pair.com > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 08:28:08 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ It will be a consolation to the French that >their partly-ageing football (soccer) team has just >now demonstrated itself to be a far better team than >the English national team and to have the quality of >world champions. Their win over Brazil was top class >and I expect another exciting match when they play >Germany. Well, I suppose that's one way to find out how many Italians subscribe to BLML. Brian. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 2 13:36:25 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jul 2 14:02:08 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <000301c69d2e$da6275a0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000501c69dce$1cbb5260$28a787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 5:53 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claim > > In English, if I'm not mistaken, "the spades > are running." Doesn't matter. Once he plays > the second spade trick, he will see the bad > break. < +=+ In my opinion "the Spades are running" is clear indication that he has miscounted and it is not until he attempts a trick that he loses that he will normally wake up to the facts. If he does realize the position before this he should speak up to say so immediately. Until stopped dummy must continue to play the cards smoothly and show no surprise or dismay. "Run the Spades" is different and he may quickly become aware that they will not run all the way down. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 2 14:41:30 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun Jul 2 14:43:02 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000501c69dce$1cbb5260$28a787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <000001c69dd4$d83dbc70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott > ----------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 5:53 PM > Subject: RE: [blml] claim > > In English, if I'm not mistaken, "the spades > > are running." Doesn't matter. Once he plays > > the second spade trick, he will see the bad > > break. > < This was not my contribution. You must have snipped away my comment and let (only a part of) the previous message to which I commented remain as if it were sent by me? Sven > +=+ In my opinion "the Spades are running" > is clear indication that he has miscounted and > it is not until he attempts a trick that he loses > that he will normally wake up to the facts. If > he does realize the position before this he should > speak up to say so immediately. Until stopped > dummy must continue to play the cards smoothly > and show no surprise or dismay. > "Run the Spades" is different and he may > quickly become aware that they will not run all > the way down. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk at amsterdamned.org Sun Jul 2 14:44:10 2006 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun Jul 2 14:44:10 2006 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for June 2006 Posts From ----- ---- 34 svenpran (at) online.no 26 twm (at) cix.co.uk 24 ereppert (at) rochester.rr.com 19 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 15 john (at) asimere.com 14 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 12 ehaa (at) starpower.net 9 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 9 mandache (at) free.fr 9 karel (at) esatclear.ie 8 guthrie (at) ntlworld.com 7 schoderb (at) msn.com 7 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 6 henk (at) ripe.net 5 tzimnoch (at) comcast.net 5 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 5 johnson (at) CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca 5 gesta (at) tiscali.co.uk 4 willner (at) cfa.harvard.edu 4 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 3 jjlbridge (at) free.fr 3 grandeval (at) vejez.fsnet.co.uk 3 adam (at) tameware.com 3 adam (at) irvine.com 2 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 2 tOM (at) Abacurial.com 2 kgrauwel (at) hotmail.com 2 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 2 hermandw (at) hdw.be 2 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 1 siegmund (at) gci.net 1 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 1 ljtrent (at) adelphia.net 1 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 1 blml (at) blakjak.com 1 anne (at) baa-lamb.co.uk 1 B.Schelen (at) IAE.NL From bbickford at charter.net Sun Jul 2 15:02:21 2006 From: bbickford at charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Sun Jul 2 15:04:07 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151766433.44a68fa1519b3@imp3-g19.free.fr><000c01c69d3d$fc1e2e00$0701a8c0@john><006a01c69da9$299ac300$059f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <3l9fa25e3l5sd27p1tu4ou6hi641k1im72@meadows.pair.com > Message-ID: <00dd01c69dd7$c1a5dd00$d36e9f18@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 08:28:08 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >>+=+ It will be a consolation to the French that >>their partly-ageing football (soccer) team has just >>now demonstrated itself to be a far better team than >>the English national team and to have the quality of >>world champions. Their win over Brazil was top class >>and I expect another exciting match when they play >>Germany. > > Well, I suppose that's one way to find out how many Italians > subscribe to BLML. Perhaps some Portuguese as well???????????? Bill Bickford > > > Brian. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 2 16:52:21 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jul 2 17:02:12 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151766433.44a68fa1519b3@imp3-g19.free.fr><000c01c69d3d$fc1e2e00$0701a8c0@john><006a01c69da9$299ac300$059f87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><3l9fa25e3l5sd27p1tu4ou6hi641k1im72@meadows.pair.com > <00dd01c69dd7$c1a5dd00$d36e9f18@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <003401c69de7$44e45a20$e09187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > > Perhaps some Portuguese as well???????????? > > Bill Bickford > > +=+ Oh, come on. They could only beat the English on penalties. We could ask Mourinho. ~ G ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Jul 2 18:45:05 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (axman22) Date: Sun Jul 2 18:46:00 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151766433.44a68fa1519b3@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 10:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > > On Jul 1, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Manuela Mandache wrote: > > > I don't speak (write, as it is) English well enough! I have improperly > > translated "les piques viennent" by "four tricks in spades". At the > > table, it > > was quite clear that South had miscounted the spades and was sure > > that once > > each opp had one, dummy's suit will provide the four remaining > > tricks. Does > > this make you change your mind? > > In English, if I'm not mistaken, "the spades are running." Doesn't > matter. Once he plays the second spade trick, he will see the bad > break. It would *not* be normal - it would be crazy - to keep playing > on spades when you *know* that will lose at least one trick, and > probably more. No, any sane bridge player will take his known top > spades, switch to diamonds, and get his twelfth trick in that suit > when the Jack falls. > > The law does *not* say that a claimant must be held to his stated > line of play when that line produces evidence, before it's too late, > that it will fail, and there is a normal alternative line. > > Hm. Is "sane bridge player" an oxymoron? ;-) As a bridge lawyer I point out that 70D specifies: ...if there is an alternative normal* line of play.... Now to me this means that those things normal include the clarification. After all, it is normal to do those things that one says one is going to do. As such, the law does say that a claimant must be held to his stated line.... to the point that any ruling in a contested claim must encompass the clarification made at the time of claim. And to be more thorough, it is a large number of [other] bridge lawyers that *do say* that "The law does *not* say that a claimant must be held to his stated line of play when that line produces evidence, before it's too late, that it will fail, and there is a normal alternative line." regards roger pewick From mandache at free.fr Sun Jul 2 23:25:39 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Sun Jul 2 23:15:55 2006 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: <1151875539.44a839d3632b3@imp3-g19.free.fr> Quoting axman22: > > Now to me this means that those things normal include the > clarification. After all, it is normal to do those things that one says one > is going to do. As such, the law does say that a claimant must be held to > his stated line.... to the point that any ruling in a contested claim must > encompass the clarification made at the time of claim. > > And to be more thorough, it is a large number of [other] bridge lawyers that > *do say* that "The law does *not* say that a claimant must be held to his > stated line of play when that line produces evidence, before it's too > late, that it will fail, and there is a normal alternative line." > I'm rather slow tonight... For me, these two paragraphs are contradictory. Could you explain me, slowly and with simple words, your actual ruling of the case? Thank you, Manuela From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 3 08:47:48 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jul 3 08:57:51 2006 Subject: [blml] (no subject) References: <1151875539.44a839d3632b3@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <003d01c69e6c$c46d1ea0$5e9187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- +=+ Manuela, This all hinges on what the claimer actually said at the time of his claim. The key law is 70D. The Director must not let him go outside of his claim statement if there is an alternative (less successful) line of play. If the claimer's words showed that he has miscounted a suit the mere fact that an opponent discards on an early trick will not necessarily reveal to claimer that he has miscounted; he may go on playing the suit until he hits an unforeseen rock. The Director must award any doubtful point against the claimer. Since claimer spoke in French, which is not my mother tongue, I hesitate to draw conclusions from his words, especially as his actual words seemed to be slightly uncertain. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ =================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuela Mandache" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2006 10:25 PM Subject: [blml] (no subject) Quoting axman22: > > Now to me this means that those things normal include the > clarification. After all, it is normal to do those things that one says one > is going to do. As such, the law does say that a claimant must be held to > his stated line.... to the point that any ruling in a contested claim must > encompass the clarification made at the time of claim. > > And to be more thorough, it is a large number of [other] bridge lawyers that > *do say* that "The law does *not* say that a claimant must be held to his > stated line of play when that line produces evidence, before it's too > late, that it will fail, and there is a normal alternative line." > I'm rather slow tonight... For me, these two paragraphs are contradictory. Could you explain me, slowly and with simple words, your actual ruling of the case? Thank you, Manuela _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 3 11:01:38 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Jul 3 10:55:08 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <002001c69d0c$714d5660$0701a8c0@john> References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:46 1/07/2006 +0100, John Probst wrote: >Irrational. He'll spot that LHO discards, and when the the diamonds come >good, he has 12 tricks. On a different layout I may not have permitted him >to pick up the D suit. Ruling a disputed claim. The primary job is to >restore equity, but with dubious points in favour of NOs. There is nothing >dubious here. Any TD going the other route is absurd. Disagree. The timing of the claim shows South thought spades couldn't be a problem anymore. The fact that West discards won't deter him from that. From john at asimere.com Mon Jul 3 18:01:24 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Mon Jul 3 18:02:54 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "John Probst" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > At 13:46 1/07/2006 +0100, John Probst wrote: > >>Irrational. He'll spot that LHO discards, and when the the diamonds come >>good, he has 12 tricks. On a different layout I may not have permitted him >>to pick up the D suit. Ruling a disputed claim. The primary job is to >>restore equity, but with dubious points in favour of NOs. There is nothing >>dubious here. Any TD going the other route is absurd. > > Disagree. The timing of the claim shows South thought spades couldn't be a > problem anymore. > The fact that West discards won't deter him from that. For me it depends on the wording he used. If he specifically claims the "spades are running" I'll stick him with it. If he just says 5 spades, 3D, 3H and a club I'll let him spot the error. As I said elsewhere I'm trying to get into his head. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Mon Jul 3 18:22:09 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Jul 3 18:23:41 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Jul 2006 07:37:06 MDT." Message-ID: <200607031610.JAA18032@mailhub.irvine.com> Jack Rhind wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > About one year ago, among French TDs there has been much ado about the > > following > > case. I think no one submitted it to the list, sorry if I'm wrong. > > > > AQJ95 > > A62 > > AK8 > > 86 > > 2 X7643 > > Q873 K4 > > 9754 J2 > > 5432 QJ97 > > K8 > > JX95 > > QX63 > > AKX > > 3NT by South, OL: C4 > > 1st trick: C4, 6, J, A > > 2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K > > 3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 > > 4th: HX, 7, 6, 4 > > 5th: H5, 8, A, D2 > > 6th: S5, 3, K, 2 > > Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows his hand saying "Four tricks > > in > > spades and I have the DQ." > > TD! > > > I give declarer the remaining tricks. He will see the 1-5 spade break and > not lose a spade trick and the DJ drops. You would also have to rule that it's irrational to pitch a diamond from hand on the third or fourth spade. Declarer has to make two pitches from the three cards H9, D3, C10. (I do *not* think it's irrational to play all the spades before cashing one high diamond from dummy; the latter is certainly good technique, but the standard for adjudicating a claim is, I believe, that we allow lousy technique but not irrational play.) I could be convinced that holding on to H9 or C10 (hoping for a pseudo-squeeze) is irrational. But someone has to make that argument. Otherwise, I might award all but one of the remaining tricks. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Mon Jul 3 18:29:02 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Jul 3 18:30:33 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Jul 2006 19:41:37 BST." <000c01c69d3d$fc1e2e00$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <200607031617.JAA18092@mailhub.irvine.com> John Probst wrote: > By the way Manuela, the single character for 10 in English is usually 'T' > not 'X', although I must admit that "X" makes a lot of sense. It *would* make a lot of sense if we didn't constantly use "x" to mean something else (i.e. an unimportant spot card). However, if someone starts using V instead of 5, I'm giving up. That one would be multiply confusing---with the Dutch use of V for "queen", with the French use of V for "jack", and with the English use of the letter to tell the French what they think of them......... -- Adam From mandache at free.fr Mon Jul 3 19:24:24 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Mon Jul 3 19:26:16 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <200607031617.JAA18092@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200607031617.JAA18092@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <1151947464.44a952c8d0258@imp2-g19.free.fr> Selon Adam Beneschan : > > John Probst wrote: > > > By the way Manuela, the single character for 10 in English is usually 'T' > > not 'X', although I must admit that "X" makes a lot of sense. > > It *would* make a lot of sense if we didn't constantly use "x" to mean > something else (i.e. an unimportant spot card). However, if someone > starts using V instead of 5, I'm giving up. That one would be > multiply confusing---with the Dutch use of V for "queen", with the > French use of V for "jack", and with the English use of the letter to > tell the French what they think of them......... I surrender! The Duplimate machines in France generate printouts using AKQJ...X, symbolic Anglophobia. I swear I'll never do it again. Regards, Manuela From mandache at free.fr Mon Jul 3 20:03:27 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Mon Jul 3 19:53:38 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <1151947464.44a952c8d0258@imp2-g19.free.fr> References: <200607031617.JAA18092@mailhub.irvine.com> <1151947464.44a952c8d0258@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <1151949807.44a95bef1d427@imp3-g19.free.fr> Selon Manuela Mandache : > I surrender! The Duplimate machines in France generate printouts using > AKQJ...X, > symbolic Anglophobia. Just checked, I'm wrong!! It's my own Anglophobia. > > Regards, > > Manuela From john at asimere.com Tue Jul 4 01:11:18 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue Jul 4 01:12:48 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <200607031617.JAA18092@mailhub.irvine.com> <1151947464.44a952c8d0258@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <001401c69ef5$fde2c070$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuela Mandache" To: "Adam Beneschan" Cc: "blml" Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim Selon Adam Beneschan : I love it. I haven't laughed so much since Grattan's amnesia posting. Thank you Adam and Manuela for joining in so brilliantly. cheers John > > John Probst wrote: > > > By the way Manuela, the single character for 10 in English is usually > > 'T' > > not 'X', although I must admit that "X" makes a lot of sense. > > It *would* make a lot of sense if we didn't constantly use "x" to mean > something else (i.e. an unimportant spot card). However, if someone > starts using V instead of 5, I'm giving up. That one would be > multiply confusing---with the Dutch use of V for "queen", with the > French use of V for "jack", and with the English use of the letter to > tell the French what they think of them......... I surrender! The Duplimate machines in France generate printouts using AKQJ...X, symbolic Anglophobia. I swear I'll never do it again. Regards, Manuela _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Tue Jul 4 09:10:49 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Tue Jul 4 10:24:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? Message-ID: <75NuYDV5RhqEFwOa@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Trick nine: LHO leads a spade, dummy follows, RHO follows, declarer discards. Trick ten: LHO leads a club. Dummy plays the only club left in the dummy in tempo without being instructed by declarer. RHO follows. Declarer pauses briefly before saying, "Oops I have got a spade. I think I have revoked on the previous trick". Is the revoke established? -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 4 11:30:43 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jul 4 11:32:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <75NuYDV5RhqEFwOa@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <000001c69f4c$859fefa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Wright > Trick nine: LHO leads a spade, dummy follows, RHO follows, declarer > discards. > > Trick ten: LHO leads a club. Dummy plays the only club left in the dummy > in tempo without being instructed by declarer. RHO follows. > > Declarer pauses briefly before saying, "Oops I have got a spade. I think > I have revoked on the previous trick". > > Is the revoke established? My first reaction was "Yes, of course, Dummy has played to the next trick" But technically Law 45D saves Declarer; Dummy has placed in the played position a card (his only remaining club) that Declarer did not name. Actually Declarer has not named any card from Dummy for trick ten. The fact that the single club is the only card that can legally be played from Dummy to this trick is irrelevant; no card has yet been played from Dummy to trick ten! So No, the revoke is not established, Declarer takes back the card he discarded to trick nine and replaces it with a spade. And Law 62C then applies to trick ten. Regards Sven From J.P.Pals at uva.nl Tue Jul 4 13:19:35 2006 From: J.P.Pals at uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Tue Jul 4 13:21:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <000001c69f4c$859fefa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> > > On Behalf Of Steve Wright > > Trick nine: LHO leads a spade, dummy follows, RHO follows, declarer > > discards. > > > > Trick ten: LHO leads a club. Dummy plays the only club left in the > > dummy in tempo without being instructed by declarer. RHO follows. > > > > Declarer pauses briefly before saying, "Oops I have got a spade. I > > think I have revoked on the previous trick". > > > > Is the revoke established? > > My first reaction was "Yes, of course, Dummy has played to > the next trick" > > But technically Law 45D saves Declarer; Dummy has placed in > the played position a card (his only remaining club) that > Declarer did not name. > > Actually Declarer has not named any card from Dummy for trick > ten. The fact that the single club is the only card that can > legally be played from Dummy to this trick is irrelevant; no > card has yet been played from Dummy to trick ten! > > So No, the revoke is not established, Declarer takes back the > card he discarded to trick nine and replaces it with a spade. > And Law 62C then applies to trick ten. > > Regards Sven But what about L63a1: A revoke becomes established when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, **legal or illegal**, establishes the revoke). Cheers JP From mandache at free.fr Tue Jul 4 13:42:22 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Tue Jul 4 13:43:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <000001c69f4c$859fefa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c69f4c$859fefa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1152013342.44aa541e1fec4@imp2-g19.free.fr> Selon Sven Pran : > > On Behalf Of Steve Wright > > Trick nine: LHO leads a spade, dummy follows, RHO follows, declarer > > discards. > > > > Trick ten: LHO leads a club. Dummy plays the only club left in the dummy > > in tempo without being instructed by declarer. RHO follows. > > > > Declarer pauses briefly before saying, "Oops I have got a spade. I think > > I have revoked on the previous trick". > > > > Is the revoke established? > > My first reaction was "Yes, of course, Dummy has played to the next trick" > > But technically Law 45D saves Declarer; Dummy has placed in the played > position a card (his only remaining club) that Declarer did not name. > > Actually Declarer has not named any card from Dummy for trick ten. The fact > that the single club is the only card that can legally be played from Dummy > to this trick is irrelevant; no card has yet been played from Dummy to trick > ten! > > So No, the revoke is not established, Declarer takes back the card he > discarded to trick nine and replaces it with a spade. And Law 62C then > applies to trick ten. > Technically, this is perfectly right. Now imagine after trick eight the following remaining cards in clubs 6 J98 T7 - Playing NT, W won trick eight and leads CJ, dummy plays in tempo and without being instructed by declarer, E follows with C7 and S discards. E realises he blocked the colour, immediately calls the TD and takes advantage of L45D to play CT instead of C7. It is utterly unethical, but the actual wording of the law allows it! What would you do in such a case? So, for Steve's case, I would first try to see if declarer had 'implicitely played' (eg, he prepared the card to play from his hand for trick ten, or, when asked, would admit having naturally left dummy play). In other words, is he trying to unethically take advantage of L45D? Regards, Manuela From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 4 13:57:14 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jul 4 13:58:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <000101c69f60$fe6cae50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jan Peter Pals > Sent: 4. juli 2006 13:20 > To: Sven Pran; blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established? > > > > On Behalf Of Steve Wright > > > Trick nine: LHO leads a spade, dummy follows, RHO follows, declarer > > > discards. > > > > > > Trick ten: LHO leads a club. Dummy plays the only club left in the > > > dummy in tempo without being instructed by declarer. RHO follows. > > > > > > Declarer pauses briefly before saying, "Oops I have got a spade. I > > > think I have revoked on the previous trick". > > > > > > Is the revoke established? > > > > My first reaction was "Yes, of course, Dummy has played to > > the next trick" > > > > But technically Law 45D saves Declarer; Dummy has placed in > > the played position a card (his only remaining club) that > > Declarer did not name. > > > > Actually Declarer has not named any card from Dummy for trick > > ten. The fact that the single club is the only card that can > > legally be played from Dummy to this trick is irrelevant; no > > card has yet been played from Dummy to trick ten! > > > > So No, the revoke is not established, Declarer takes back the > > card he discarded to trick nine and replaces it with a spade. > > And Law 62C then applies to trick ten. > > > > Regards Sven > > But what about L63a1: A revoke becomes established when the offender or > his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, > **legal or illegal**, establishes the revoke). Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; he "placed" his single club in a played position. That is an essential and important difference. Regards Sven From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jul 4 14:51:47 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Jul 4 14:53:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? Message-ID: <20060704125147.D94BBDAC94@poczta.interia.pl> > Technically, this is perfectly right. Now imagine after trick eight the > following remaining cards in clubs > 6 > J98 T7 > - > Playing NT, W won trick eight and leads CJ, dummy plays in tempo and > without > being instructed by declarer, E follows with C7 and S discards. E realises > he > blocked the colour, immediately calls the TD and takes advantage of L45D > to > play CT instead of C7. It is utterly unethical, but the actual wording of > the > law allows it! You are contradicting yourself. If the wording of the laws allows X then doing X cannot be, by definition, unethical. The Code Of Practice says: "A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism." In your example not only East is allowed to retract his card and play another but also he is not subject to criticism. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interaktywne mapy miast na http://map24.interia.pl From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Jul 4 14:56:21 2006 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Jul 4 14:57:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <000101c69f60$fe6cae50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAF0@rama.Micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 13:57 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established? > > Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; he "placed" his > single > club in a played position. That is an essential and important difference. > > Regards Sven True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in cases that it does not matter, dummy may play automatically. You could say that declarer gives a silent command to play the club. Which makes the club a played card. Regards -- Martin Sinot From J.P.Pals at uva.nl Tue Jul 4 14:57:51 2006 From: J.P.Pals at uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Tue Jul 4 14:59:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <000101c69f60$fe6cae50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD6@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> >> JP: >> But what about L63a1: A revoke becomes established when the offender >> or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, >> **legal or illegal**, establishes the revoke). > > Sven: > Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; he "placed" his single > club in a played position. That is an essential and important difference. Play : 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead. So, to 'place' a card is not an (illegal) play? Cheers JP From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 4 15:16:27 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jul 4 15:18:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <1152013342.44aa541e1fec4@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000e01c69f6c$0f3a2130$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Manuela Mandache > Selon Sven Pran : ............. > Technically, this is perfectly right. Now imagine after trick eight the > following remaining cards in clubs > 6 > J98 T7 > - > Playing NT, W won trick eight and leads CJ, dummy plays > in tempo and without being instructed by declarer, > E follows with C7 and S discards. E realises he > blocked the colour, immediately calls the TD and takes > advantage of L45D to play CT instead of C7. > It is utterly unethical, but the actual wording of > the law allows it! What would you do in such a case? No, this is not what Law 45D says or how it is to be understood. If Declarer calls a particular card and Dummy places a different card in the "played position" then any player (not Dummy) can request that card to be withdrawn and the play corrected under Law 45D. But when Dummy places a card in the played position without declarer naming any card to be played then RHO cannot first play his card to that trick and then change this play unless Declarer eventually (within Law 45D) requests a different card to be played from Dummy. > > So, for Steve's case, I would first try to see if declarer had > 'implicitely > played' (eg, he prepared the card to play from his hand for trick ten, or, > when > asked, would admit having naturally left dummy play). In other words, is > he > trying to unethically take advantage of L45D? If Declarer in any way appears to having condoned the "play" of the single club from Dummy then I too would rule that the card had been played (by Declarer's consent) and that the revoke was established, but the way the question was asked gave me the impression that he had not. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 4 15:19:31 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jul 4 15:21:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD6@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <000f01c69f6c$7c8fefd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Jan Peter Pals > >> JP: > >> But what about L63a1: A revoke becomes established when the offender > >> or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, > >> **legal or illegal**, establishes the revoke). > > > > Sven: > > Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; he "placed" his > single > > club in a played position. That is an essential and important > difference. > > Play : > 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the > first card, which is the lead. > > So, to 'place' a card is not an (illegal) play? Look up Laws 45A and 45B. Dummy cannot "play" any card! Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 4 15:39:58 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jul 4 15:41:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAF0@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <001001c69f6f$58b6a970$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Sinot Martin > > Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; he "placed" his > > single > > club in a played position. That is an essential and important > difference. > > > > Regards Sven > > True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in cases that it > does not matter, dummy may play automatically. You could say that > declarer gives a silent command to play the club. Which makes the club a > played card. What gave you that impression? (That they have a convention) Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 4 16:19:14 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Jul 4 16:12:00 2006 Subject: [blml] The term "cue" In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060627153029.02d245d0@pop.starpower.net> References: <001001c69a03$02f30c20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <200606271539.k5RFdZJb005401@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> <001001c69a03$02f30c20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060704161346.0275dc50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:22 27/06/2006 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>One of San Diego's top players recently explained his partner's >>unAlerted simple raise of a weak two bid as "non-forcing" when my >>partner was considering a balancing 3S bid. Partner passed when >>given this explanation, which should have been something like "That >>is a drop-dead bid which I must pass." > >That's not a misexplanation; that's an outright evasion, no better than a >flat refusal to answer the question. Does this so-called "top player" >really know of any partnership anywhere in the world that plays a single >raise of a weak two-bid as *forcing*? I'd be very surprised, to say the least. > >But I'll bet this "top player" could cite chapter and verse as to why his >non-explanation was not a violation of this or that law. There is something odd in that case. Either said partner asked about a non-alerted bid whose classical meaning (shut out) is well known ; why on Earth would he do that ? Either he didn't, and there was a wrong information voluntary offered ; that's a severe offence, and it won't be that difficult to obtain redress for that. Could Marvin tell us a little more about the case ? Regards Alain From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 4 16:01:37 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jul 4 16:20:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <000001c69f4c$859fefa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1152013342.44aa541e1fec4@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuela Mandache" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 6:42 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established? Selon Sven Pran : > > On Behalf Of Steve Wright > > Trick nine: LHO leads a spade, dummy follows, RHO follows, declarer > > discards. > > > > Trick ten: LHO leads a club. Dummy plays the only club left in the dummy > > in tempo without being instructed by declarer. RHO follows. > > > > Declarer pauses briefly before saying, "Oops I have got a spade. I think > > I have revoked on the previous trick". > > > > Is the revoke established? The issue is whether declarer corrected his revoke before his side played to the current trick. The given fact is that dummy detached a card after rho led and put it in a played position. That the card must be withdrawn [L45D] does not make it nonplayed, nor that dummy did so illegally [L45B, as without instruction] does not make the card nonplayed. The card was played- by dummy, [it was intended to be played no less] and it was played before the revoke was corrected. Therefore the revoke was established L63A1 /A2. ### Now imagine after trick eight the following remaining cards in clubs 6 J98 T7 - Playing NT, W won trick eight and leads CJ, dummy plays in tempo and without being instructed by declarer, E follows with C7 and S discards. E realises he blocked the colour, immediately calls the TD and takes advantage of L45D to play CT instead of C7. It is utterly unethical, but the actual wording of the law allows it! What would you do in such a case? ### 45D specifies that dummy's card must be withdrawn and provides for LHO to change his play - without penalty. Conformance with law is something to be sought after and admired, not denigrated as being unethical. regards roger pewick Regards, Manuela From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Jul 4 16:58:14 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue Jul 4 16:59:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209C7@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in cases that it does not matter, dummy may play automatically. You could say that declarer gives a silent command to play the club. Which makes the club a played card. Regards -- Martin Sinot _______________________________________________ For a different purpose, L57C says that cards are not automatically played. "A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, is not considered to be automatically played." Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From mandache at free.fr Tue Jul 4 17:12:34 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Tue Jul 4 17:14:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <000e01c69f6c$0f3a2130$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000e01c69f6c$0f3a2130$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <1152025954.44aa8562c1390@imp2-g19.free.fr> > > Technically, this is perfectly right. Now imagine after trick eight the > > following remaining cards in clubs > > 6 > > J98 T7 > > - > > Playing NT, W won trick eight and leads CJ, dummy plays > > in tempo and without being instructed by declarer, > > E follows with C7 and S discards. E realises he > > blocked the colour, immediately calls the TD and takes > > advantage of L45D to play CT instead of C7. > > It is utterly unethical, but the actual wording of > > the law allows it! What would you do in such a case? > > No, this is not what Law 45D says or how it is to be understood. > > If Declarer calls a particular card and Dummy places a different card in the > "played position" then any player (not Dummy) can request that card to be > withdrawn and the play corrected under Law 45D. > > But when Dummy places a card in the played position without declarer naming > any card to be played then RHO cannot first play his card to that trick and > then change this play unless Declarer eventually (within Law 45D) requests a > different card to be played from Dummy. > I do agree on the *interpretation* of L45D, but what it *says* is 'If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name[...]' There is no precision about what declarer *did* name - another card or no card at all. I'm playing devil's advocate, there are some little words missing in the law - the defenders should be authorised to substitute played cards only if the card declarer calls from dummy is not the one dummy 'placed in played position' all by himself. As to whether I contradict myself on the ethics, well, should I have used 'immoral'? Some days ago, there have been postings on 'active ethics'. Cheers, Manuela From Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com Tue Jul 4 17:13:09 2006 From: Martin.Sinot at Micronas.com (Sinot Martin) Date: Tue Jul 4 17:14:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209C7@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAFB@rama.Micronas.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Robin Barker > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 16:58 > To: blml > Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established? > > > True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in cases that it > does not matter, dummy may play automatically. You could say that > declarer gives a silent command to play the club. Which makes the club a > played card. > > Regards > -- > Martin Sinot > > _______________________________________________ > > For a different purpose, L57C says that cards are not automatically > played. > > "A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, > is not considered to be automatically played." > > Robin > You know that, and I know that, but loads of players don't seem to get this. Worse than that, if you wait patiently until declarer names the singleton, you get comments from declarer: "When are you going to play?" If you then say that you are waiting for declarer to play the singleton, they get irritated and tell you, "What should I play then instead of the singleton?" My experience is that when dummy plays a card without a command from declarer, it is usually a long standing habit of the pair. Therefore I would rule that declarer gave a silent command to play the singleton, hence the singleton be played, and the revoke established. Next time, dummy will think twice before playing cards on his own. -- Martin Sinot From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jul 4 17:20:17 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Jul 4 17:21:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? Message-ID: <20060704152017.96A7EDAC94@poczta.interia.pl> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manuela Mandache" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 6:42 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established? > > > Selon Sven Pran : > > > > On Behalf Of Steve Wright > > > Trick nine: LHO leads a spade, dummy follows, RHO follows, declarer > > > discards. > > > > > > Trick ten: LHO leads a club. Dummy plays the only club left in the > dummy > > > in tempo without being instructed by declarer. RHO follows. > > > > > > Declarer pauses briefly before saying, "Oops I have got a spade. I > think > > > I have revoked on the previous trick". > > > > > > Is the revoke established? > > The issue is whether declarer corrected his revoke before his side played > to > the current trick. > > The given fact is that dummy detached a card after rho led and put it in > a > played position. That the card must be withdrawn [L45D] does not make > it > nonplayed, It does. Why on earth would L45D distinguish between a card "placed in the played position" and a card "played" if these two were identical in nature? Let's have a look: "If dummy PLACES IN THE PLAYED POSITION a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw (without penalty) a card PLAYED" Emphasis mine in both cases. The card put on the table by a defender is called "played", while the card put on the table by dummy is called "placed in the played position". I believe this distinction is made for a reason - namely the lawmakers didn't regard dummy's action playing a card. Why else would they use such a convoluted expression as "placing in the played position" instead of simply saying "If dummy plays a card that declarer did not name...". __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interaktywne mapy miast na http://map24.interia.pl/ From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jul 4 19:12:53 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue Jul 4 19:14:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <000001c69f4c$859fefa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002901c69f8d$169bc430$f4150947@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 2:30 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established? > On Behalf Of Steve Wright > Trick nine: LHO leads a spade, dummy follows, RHO follows, declarer > discards. > > Trick ten: LHO leads a club. Dummy plays the only club left in the dummy > in tempo without being instructed by declarer. RHO follows. > > Declarer pauses briefly before saying, "Oops I have got a spade. I think > I have revoked on the previous trick". > > Is the revoke established? My first reaction was "Yes, of course, Dummy has played to the next trick" But technically Law 45D saves Declarer; Dummy has placed in the played position a card (his only remaining club) that Declarer did not name. Actually Declarer has not named any card from Dummy for trick ten. The fact that the single club is the only card that can legally be played from Dummy to this trick is irrelevant; no card has yet been played from Dummy to trick ten! So No, the revoke is not established, Declarer takes back the card he discarded to trick nine and replaces it with a spade. And Law 62C then applies to trick ten. Regards Sven Does not Law 63A clearly indicate that the revoke is established. "When the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal establishes the revoke). " Here, dummy's placing the singleton in a played position was obviously a "play", so declarer has "played" the card (since dummy is an extension of declarer) illegally. Nevertheless played. From adam at tameware.com Tue Jul 4 19:56:15 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue Jul 4 19:57:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs Message-ID: Next week the ACBL's Board of Directors will consider a motion to replace Appeals Committees of players with Appeals Committees of TDs for NABC+ events. These are our premier events such as the Spingold and the LM Pairs. The motion is posted here: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/about/ChicagoMotions.pdf This is the text: "Item 062-90: NABC Appeals ACBL Tournament Directors shall hear and rule upon all appeals filed at North American Bridge Championships. All NABC+ appeals shall be heard by Tournament Director Panels in a manner similar to regional appeal hearings (Ref: 983-02, 992-02). All conduct and Ethics matters shall be referred to and heard by the NABC Tournament Committee or to their assignees." I think this is a poor idea. I have posted a copy of my letter to Jim Reiman, the chairman of the board's bridge committee, below. If you are an ACBL member and you agree with me please drop Jim a line, with a copy to your district director and to me. Jim's address is district11director at acbl dot org. A short note is fine. Motions like this typically don't get much publicity, so the board hears only from their proponents. I hope to help demonstrate that there is no consensus on this issue. No doubt some will disagree with me - I suppose you should write too. =================== Dear Jim, I've learned that in Chicago the BOD will consider a motion to replace player ACs with TD Panels. I strongly support the current method of using appeals committees for NABC events. Since this matter first came up four years ago I've been publishing detailed statistics regarding the results of ACs and Panels. They can be found here: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_casebook_summaries.html While the judgment of correctness in each case is mine I have published all my findings and invited casebook readers to challenge any they disagree with. I've received only a handful of such challenges, and have modified my findings whenever the challenge seemed reasonable. My data cover 293 AC and 222 Panel rulings over a period of five years, through the Dallas NABC. In brief, I found that when ACs changed TD rulings, and excluding cases I judged too close to call, they improved them 82% of the time and worsened them 18% of the time. I feel terrible about that 18%, especially since some of those were perpetrated by committees I served on or even chaired. Panels, however, had a poorer record, improving 72% of the rulings they changed while worsening 28%, again excluding cases I judged too close to call. This difference becomes more significant if we take into account that cases heard by Panels tend to be more straightforward than those heard by ACs. On a practical basis, then, I don't see what is to be accomplished by instituting a system that we can expect will produce more injustice than the current one. The cost savings, if any, would seem to be minor. In terms of jurisprudence I also find the proposal lacking. Since both the TDs who make the decision and the members of the panel report to the Chief TD the appeal in effect is from one jurisdiction into that same jurisdiction. When decisions are made by our top TDs, who have consulted with other top TDs, a panel of TDs will naturally be reluctant to overturn the decision. Players enjoy our tournaments in large part because they perceive them to be fair. It's important that we should be seen to do our utmost to maintain that fairness. Regards, Adam Wildavsky -- From schuster at eduhi.at Tue Jul 4 20:04:29 2006 From: schuster at eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Tue Jul 4 20:06:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <20060704152017.96A7EDAC94@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20060704152017.96A7EDAC94@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:20:17 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Manuela Mandache" >> To: "BLML" >> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 6:42 AM >> Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established? >> >> >> Selon Sven Pran : >> >> > > On Behalf Of Steve Wright >> > > Trick nine: LHO leads a spade, dummy follows, RHO follows, declarer >> > > discards. >> > > >> > > Trick ten: LHO leads a club. Dummy plays the only club left in the >> dummy >> > > in tempo without being instructed by declarer. RHO follows. >> > > >> > > Declarer pauses briefly before saying, "Oops I have got a spade. I >> think >> > > I have revoked on the previous trick". >> > > >> > > Is the revoke established? >> >> The issue is whether declarer corrected his revoke before his side >> played >> to >> the current trick. >> >> The given fact is that dummy detached a card after rho led and put it in >> a >> played position. That the card must be withdrawn [L45D] does not make >> it >> nonplayed, > > > It does. Why on earth would L45D distinguish between a card > "placed in the played position" and a card "played" if these > two were identical in nature? Let's have a look: > > > "If dummy PLACES IN THE PLAYED POSITION a card that declarer > did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention > is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, > and a defender may withdraw (without penalty) > a card PLAYED" > > Emphasis mine in both cases. > > The card put on the table by a defender is called "played", > while the card put on the table by dummy is called > "placed in the played position". I believe this > distinction is made for a reason - namely the lawmakers > didn't regard dummy's action playing a card. > Why else would they use such a convoluted expression > as "placing in the played position" instead of simply > saying "If dummy plays a card that declarer did not name...". > So the trick is defective if everybody just plays on? This may lead to all sorts of problems if the singleton has won the trick and L67 is applied literally. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Jul 4 20:34:21 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Tue Jul 4 20:38:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs References: Message-ID: <001c01c69f98$791989c0$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Adam Wildavsky" > Next week the ACBL's Board of Directors will consider a motion to > replace Appeals Committees of players with Appeals Committees of TDs > for NABC+ events. These are our premier events such as the Spingold > and the LM Pairs. > > > This is the text: > > "Item 062-90: NABC Appeals > ACBL Tournament Directors shall hear and rule upon all appeals filed > at North American Bridge Championships. All NABC+ appeals shall be > heard by Tournament Director Panels in a manner similar to regional > appeal hearings (Ref: 983-02, 992-02). All conduct and Ethics matters > shall be referred to and heard by the NABC Tournament Committee or to > their assignees." > > I think this is a poor idea. I have posted a copy of my letter to Jim > Reiman, the chairman of the board's bridge committee, below. If you > are an ACBL member and you agree with me please drop Jim a line, with > a copy to your district director and to me. Jim's address is > district11director at acbl dot org. > > A short note is fine. Motions like this typically don't get much > publicity, so the board hears only from their proponents. I hope to > help demonstrate that there is no consensus on this issue. > > No doubt some will disagree with me I suppose I agree, although I don't see that the NABC AC does such a great job either, considering that they have much more leisure for reaching a decision than do busy TDs. Comparing TD Panel and AC performance disregards the fact that the cases from regionally-rated and NABC+ events are apples and oranges. Nor do I see why appeals can't be handled as they are at most regionals, with an *ad hoc* committee comprising knowledgeable players meeting immediately after the session. I have not heard of any complaints regarding that method, which would save the money paid to NABC AC members and eliminate the dubious practice of having TDs adjudicate the rulings of TDs. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From andre.steffens at hccnet.nl Tue Jul 4 20:41:43 2006 From: andre.steffens at hccnet.nl (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Steffens?=) Date: Tue Jul 4 20:43:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAFB@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <200607041841.k64IfiNp016209@smtp30.hccnet.nl> >True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in cases that it > does not matter, dummy may play automatically. You could say that > declarer gives a silent command to play the club. Which makes the club a > played card. > > Regards > -- > Martin Sinot > > _______________________________________________ > > For a different purpose, L57C says that cards are not automatically > played. > > "A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same suit, > is not considered to be automatically played." > > Robin > We discussed a similar case on the dutch forum a few days ago. How about stating that Law 46 B applies here: Incomplete or Erroneous Call In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): Declarer's intention to play the singleton is incontrovertible, so Law 45D does not come into play Andr? Steffens _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mandache at free.fr Tue Jul 4 21:10:50 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Tue Jul 4 21:00:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c69f4c$859fefa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1152013342.44aa541e1fec4@imp2-g19.free.fr> <1152030715.44aa97fb12890@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <1152040250.44aabd3a7d7d9@imp3-g19.free.fr> Selon Roger Pewick : > > Whereas I admit that 'unethical' is not the proper word, I in no way can > be > > brought to seek after and admire the behavior of RHO described in my > example. > > > > Best, > > > > Manuela > > Why are you disgusted with this player for doing this thing? What is the > basis? What fundamental principle underlies your feelings? Where did this > principle originate? Without these things one is hard pressed to evaluate > if your feelings are justified by your standards. > > regards > roger pewick Well, anyway, one may see that I was annoyed enough to forget to put the address of the list when I posted :o) There is no bridge reason why a defender should play something if dummy 'places in played position' a certain card and something else if it is declarer who calls the very same card. I feel that RHO, unable to produce a proper defense when playing bridge, uses what I consider a lack in the law (as I said in a previous posting) to correct his poor play. He is there to play bridge, not to win a procedural squirmish - I'm getting hot again :o) On the other hand, one may say this is the righteous punition of dummy for advancing the cards without declarer's instruction, and of declarer for accepting this. Whereas I really agree to this, RHO's behaviour still gets on my nerves. Very few cases excepted (eg, an established revoke*...), laws and TDs are here to ensure that the result obtained when there has been an irregularity is as close as possible to the one that would have regularly been obtained. In my example, RHO *did* block the clubs. Cheers, Manuela * and then, the punition is conceived to deter such behaviour From mandache at free.fr Tue Jul 4 21:24:23 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Tue Jul 4 21:14:28 2006 Subject: Trans.: RE: [blml] Revoke established? Message-ID: <1152041063.44aac0675752e@imp3-g19.free.fr> Quoting Sinot Martin : > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org > [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org] > > On Behalf Of Robin Barker > > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 16:58 > > To: blml > > Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established? > > > > > > True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in cases that > it > > does not matter, dummy may play automatically. You could say that > > declarer gives a silent command to play the club. Which makes the club > a > > played card. > > > > Regards > > -- > > Martin Sinot > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > For a different purpose, L57C says that cards are not automatically > > played. > > > > "A singleton in dummy, or one of cards adjacent in rank of the same > suit, > > is not considered to be automatically played." > > > > Robin > > > > You know that, and I know that, but loads of players don't seem to get > this. > Worse than that, if you wait patiently until declarer names the > singleton, > you get comments from declarer: "When are you going to play?" If you > then > say that you are waiting for declarer to play the singleton, they get > irritated and tell you, "What should I play then instead of the > singleton?" > My experience is that when dummy plays a card without a command from > declarer, it is usually a long standing habit of the pair. Therefore I > would > rule that declarer gave a silent command to play the singleton, hence > the singleton be played, and the revoke established. Next time, dummy > will think twice before playing cards on his own. > Arriving at the table, I might innocently ask 'Have you played from dummy?' I guess that most of the time declarer's reaction would teach me everything I need to know... Best, Manuela From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Tue Jul 4 23:22:09 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Tue Jul 4 23:30:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <001001c69f6f$58b6a970$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAF0@rama.Micronas.com> <001001c69f6f$58b6a970$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <43zO7IfBwtqEFwvR@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> In message <001001c69f6f$58b6a970$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Sinot Martin >> > Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; he "placed" his >> > single >> > club in a played position. That is an essential and important >> difference. >> > >> > Regards Sven >> >> True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in cases that it >> does not matter, dummy may play automatically. You could say that >> declarer gives a silent command to play the club. Which makes the club a >> played card. > >What gave you that impression? (That they have a convention) > >Regards Sven The actual case at the table was dummy had a stiff KQ of clubs instead of the singleton. According to LHO, I said, "Yes", after dummy (without prompting) selected the queen and placed it (in tempo) in the played position. I can't remember saying this, but I was deep in the think tank wondering why I had a spade still in my hand when according to my calculations it should have fallen on LHO spades when he ran the suit. LHO was a friend and renown honest person, so I have no reason to doubt his observations. I ruled "Revoke established". But it led to wondering what would have happened if I had not made a gesture to dummy. Where I play, it is the norm for singletons and cards of touching rank to be played automatically by dummy in tempo. (Broken suits such as King-Jack when the Queen has been played earlier are never automatically played; nor is the opening lead). IMHO, looking at L45B/L45D, the letter of the law IMHO does support Sven's argument for "Not established" - But I'm uncomfortable with this. I think that at the table I would rule that if declarer implicitly accepted dummy's action and then said "I think I have revoked" then I rule "Established". OTOH if declarer says immediately "Hang on a minute, I think I've revoked" as dummy plays the singleton I would rule "Not established". I liken this to this issue of insufficient bid verses mechanical error. For example, LHO bids 1S. I intend to overcall 2H, but accidentally pull 1H from the bidding box. In EBU-Land, a bid is made when it is "pulled from the box with intent". If, as the bid touches the table, RHO says, "That's insufficient", do you rule insufficient or mechanical error? I always rule that if RHO pounces then it is a mechanical error, but if he gives a reasonable pause and then says, then it is an insufficient bid. Applying that philosophy to this situation ... if there is a pause after dummy's action then dummy's card is played and the revoke established. But if declarer immediately notices his revoke then dummy's action is not sanctioned and revoke is not established. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk Tue Jul 4 23:21:30 2006 From: blml at wrightnet.demon.co.uk (Steve Wright) Date: Tue Jul 4 23:30:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <000f01c69f6c$7c8fefd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD6@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <000f01c69f6c$7c8fefd0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <8H1PXleavtqEFwMD@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> In message <000f01c69f6c$7c8fefd0$6400a8c0@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >> On Behalf Of Jan Peter Pals >> >> JP: >> >> But what about L63a1: A revoke becomes established when the offender >> >> or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, >> >> **legal or illegal**, establishes the revoke). >> > >> > Sven: >> > Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; he "placed" his >> single >> > club in a played position. That is an essential and important >> difference. >> >> Play : >> 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the >> first card, which is the lead. >> >> So, to 'place' a card is not an (illegal) play? > >Look up Laws 45A and 45B. Dummy cannot "play" any card! > >Regards Sven In addition, according to L45F, this is not a "played" card, but a "suggestion" of a card to be played. -- Steve Wright Leicester, England From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 4 23:47:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jul 4 23:49:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roger wrote: > The given fact is that dummy detached a card after rho led and put it > in a played position. That the card must be withdrawn [L45D] does > not make it nonplayed, nor that dummy did so illegally [L45B, as > without instruction] does not make the card nonplayed. How about L42a3: Play as Declarer's Agent He plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent as directed Whatever he does on his own initiative isn't "playing". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 5 00:00:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jul 5 00:02:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam wrote: > "Item 062-90: NABC Appeals > ACBL Tournament Directors shall hear and rule upon all appeals filed > at North American Bridge Championships. All NABC+ appeals shall be > heard by Tournament Director Panels in a manner similar to regional > appeal hearings (Ref: 983-02, 992-02). All conduct and Ethics matters > shall be referred to and heard by the NABC Tournament Committee or to > their assignees." I don't know about the US but over here I can't think of many EBU TDs who are more than third rate players (and some pretty good TDs are about eighth rate players). Likewise I cannot think of many first rate players who have any real understanding of (or interest in) the laws. Since an AC (for a quality event) needs both bridge and legal knowledge a combination of 1TD+2 top players (or 2TDs and 1 one top player) would seem the least one should be considering. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 5 00:31:36 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jul 5 00:33:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <43zO7IfBwtqEFwvR@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <001101c69fb9$9c8f4900$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Steve Wright > >> > Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; > >> > he "placed" his single club in a played position. > >> > That is an essential and important difference. > >> > Regards Sven > >> > >> True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in > >> cases that it does not matter, dummy may play automatically. > >> You could say that declarer gives a silent command to play > >> the club. Which makes the club a played card. > > > >What gave you that impression? (That they have a convention) > > > >Regards Sven > > The actual case at the table was dummy had a stiff KQ of clubs > instead of the singleton. According to LHO, I said, "Yes", after > dummy (without prompting) selected the queen and placed it (in > tempo) in the played position. > > I can't remember saying this, but I was deep in the think tank > wondering why I had a spade still in my hand when according to > my calculations it should have fallen on LHO spades when he ran > the suit. > > LHO was a friend and renown honest person, so I have no reason > to doubt his observations. I ruled "Revoke established". > > But it led to wondering what would have happened if I had not > made a gesture to dummy. > > Where I play, it is the norm for singletons and cards of touching > rankto be played automatically by dummy in tempo. (Broken suits > such as King-Jack when the Queen has been played earlier are never > automatically played; nor is the opening lead). > > IMHO, looking at L45B/L45D, the letter of the law IMHO does support > Sven's argument for "Not established" - But I'm uncomfortable with > this. > > I think that at the table I would rule that if declarer implicitly > accepted dummy's action and then said "I think I have revoked" then > I rule "Established". OTOH if declarer says immediately "Hang on a > minute, I think I've revoked" as dummy plays the singleton I would > rule "Not established". Now, do we have some revelation here! First of all (as also others have pointed out) Dummy can never "play" a card, any action he takes to that (or a similar) effect is a "suggestion" and indeed a violation of Law 45F. If Dummy's play is forced (like with a singleton) or obvious (like "playing" one among adjacent cards) Dummy's action is still only a suggestion. Now, if Declarer in any way indicates an acceptance of that suggestion, like by nodding, saying "yes" or in any other way then the suggested card becomes played, however Law 45F still applies and defenders are within their rights if they call the Director for this reason. And it does not matter at all if Declarer made his gesture, remark or whatever rather absent-minded, for instance while studying his hand, the suggestion has still been accepted and the card shall be deemed played. However, if Declarer apparently has not noticed the "suggestion" by Dummy, for instance because he (Declarer) was occupied figuring out some problem with his own hand, nor has given any indication of acceptance to this suggestion then I shall maintain my opinion that the revoke by him in the immediately preceding trick has not yet been established even when his RHO has played a card subsequent to Dummy's "suggestion". Technically the play by RHO in this case is premature, but I shall probably not hold that against him in a case like the described. > I liken this to this issue of insufficient bid verses mechanical error. > For example, LHO bids 1S. I intend to overcall 2H, but accidentally pull > 1H from the bidding box. In EBU-Land, a bid is made when it is "pulled > from the box with intent". If, as the bid touches the table, RHO says, > "That's insufficient", do you rule insufficient or mechanical error? I > always rule that if RHO pounces then it is a mechanical error, but if he > gives a reasonable pause and then says, then it is an insufficient bid. Hardly relevant or comparable to the question of when a revoke becomes established. An inadvertent call can be replaced without any penalty as long as partner (!) has not made a subsequent call. The important fact for the Director to establish is if the player had any pause for thought from the moment he discovered his allegedly inadvertent call until he indicates that that call was not his intended call. How much time passes after he made his call until he discovered his error is irrelevant! So it is quite possible that an insufficient bid shall be ruled inadvertent even when some significant time has passed following the bid. > Applying that philosophy to this situation ... if there is a pause after > dummy's action then dummy's card is played and the revoke established. > But if declarer immediately notices his revoke then dummy's action is > not sanctioned and revoke is not established. No, I don't think this logic is applicable. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 5 00:52:02 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jul 5 00:53:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c69fbc$7742c390$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Adam wrote: > > > "Item 062-90: NABC Appeals > > ACBL Tournament Directors shall hear and rule upon all appeals filed > > at North American Bridge Championships. All NABC+ appeals shall be > > heard by Tournament Director Panels in a manner similar to regional > > appeal hearings (Ref: 983-02, 992-02). All conduct and Ethics matters > > shall be referred to and heard by the NABC Tournament Committee or to > > their assignees." > > I don't know about the US but over here I can't think of many EBU TDs > who are more than third rate players (and some pretty good TDs are about > eighth rate players). Likewise I cannot think of many first rate > players who have any real understanding of (or interest in) the laws. > Since an AC (for a quality event) needs both bridge and legal knowledge > a combination of 1TD+2 top players (or 2TDs and 1 one top player) would > seem the least one should be considering. An AC can not overrule the Director on a matter of Law or regulation (L94B3); the duty of an AC is to try the Director's judgments. Consequently it is more important for members of the AC to be competent bridge players than to be competent "bridge lawyers". Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 5 01:50:30 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jul 5 01:52:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky: [snip] >My data cover 293 AC and 222 Panel rulings over a period of five >years, through the Dallas NABC. In brief, I found that when ACs >changed TD rulings, and excluding cases I judged too close to call, >they improved them 82% of the time and worsened them 18% of the >time. > >I feel terrible about that 18%, especially since some of those >were perpetrated by committees I served on or even chaired. >Panels, however, had a poorer record, improving 72% of the rulings >they changed while worsening 28%, again excluding cases I judged >too close to call. This difference becomes more significant if we >take into account that cases heard by Panels tend to be more >straightforward than those heard by ACs. [snip] Richard Hills: Adam's statistics are incomplete, since they do not provide any information on when erroneous TD rulings have been upheld by an erroneous appeals committee. Also, I do not believe that Adam's statistics are relevant. Adam assumes that the past quality of the TDs who were selected for panels reviewing Regional ("Rueful Rabbit") rulings will be identical to the future quality of the TDs who will be selected for ACs reviewing NABC+ ("Hideous Hog") rulings. Provided that an AC follows the standard practice of polling peers when assessing logical alternatives, I would argue that world- class TDs are better equipped than world-class experts to give an accurate appeals committee ruling. Therefore, in my opinion, an AC composed of Kojak, Ton and Grattan would give better rulings than an AC composed of Meckstroth, Wolff and Rodwell. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jul 5 02:07:37 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jul 5 02:12:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs References: <001201c69fbc$7742c390$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <003f01c69fc7$07529a00$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > > An AC can not overrule the Director on a matter of Law or regulation > (L94B3); the duty of an AC is to try the Director's judgments. Consequently > it is more important for members of the AC to be competent bridge players > than to be competent "bridge lawyers". > But ACs can recommend that a TD overrule himself on a point of Law or regulation, which is often appropriate. That takes legal knowledge. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 5 03:47:41 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jul 5 03:47:33 2006 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: <005901c69fd5$018ce860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Wildavsky] > I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let > me pose a question. Suppose you were faced > with a complete rewrite of the laws, with > all the laws renumbered and reorganized and > almost every law rewritten. How would you > determine whether or not it was an improvement > over the existing laws? [nige1] [A] For players: Is the resultant game more enjoyable? Do more players understand and agree with the rules? Is the game still recognizably Bridge? [B] For directors: Do more directors understand the rules? Are the rules easier to enforce? Do the rules result in more consistent rulings? [C] [For everybody] Are the rules more complete, clearer, simpler, more internally consistent, less subjective? Are the laws well laid out, indexed, easy to find? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 5 04:05:09 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jul 5 04:05:00 2006 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: Message-ID: <005d01c69fd7$71a28860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Richard Hills] > Let me pose four questions. > (1) Should the Lawbook be written for the > convenience of, and easy comprehension by, > the average club TD? [Nige1] The main target audience should be the average player (among whom are many club directors). [Richard] > (2) Is the current organisation and wording > of the Lawbook inconvenient for, and often > incomprehensible to, the average club TD? [Nige1] There are many examples in BLML, of national directors and law-writers citing the wrong rule and many more cases of misinterpretation. At club level, some directors are just as bad. [Richard] > (3) Would *any* sensible rewriting and > reeorganisation of the Lawbook be a *vast* > improvement on the arcane wording and > spaghetti organisation of the current > Lawbook? [Nige1] IMO a competent lawyer and a competent technical writer (both good bridge players) would produce a vastly improved document. [Richard] > (4) Is the Lawbook merely written for the > convenience of those members of the ACBL LC who > wish to track the changes in specific Laws over > the decades ? If it is definitely broke, still > don't fix it, because it is too hard for very > busy ACBL LC members with more important work > to do? [Nige1] IMO the main criticism is that the rules don't have players as their main target audience. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 5 04:29:29 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jul 5 04:29:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs References: Message-ID: <007b01c69fda$d81cf0a0$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Wildavski] > I've learned that in Chicago the BOD will > consider a motion to replace player ACs with > TD Panels. > I strongly support the current method of using > appeals committees for NABC events. > Since this matter first came up four years ago > I've been publishing detailed statistics > regarding the results of ACs and Panels. > They can be found here: > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_case book_summaries.html > > While the judgment of correctness in each case > is mine I have published all my findings and > invited casebook readers to challenge > any they disagree with. I've received only a > handful of such challenges, and have modified > my findings whenever the challenge seemed > reasonable. > > My data cover 293 AC and 222 Panel rulings > over a period of five years, through the Dallas > NABC. In brief, I found that when ACs > changed TD rulings, and excluding cases I > judged too close to call, they improved them > 82% of the time and worsened them 18% of the > time. > I feel terrible about that 18%, especially > since some of those were perpetrated by > committees I served on or even chaired. Panels, > however, had a poorer record, improving 72% of > the rulings they changed while worsening 28%, > again excluding cases I judged too close > to call. This difference becomes more significant > if we take into account that cases heard by > Panels tend to be more straightforward > than those heard by ACs. > On a practical basis, then, I don't see what is > to be accomplished by instituting a system that > we can expect will produce more injustice > than the current one. The cost savings, if any, > would seem to be minor. > In terms of jurisprudence I also find the > proposal lacking. Since both the TDs who make > the decision and the members of the panel > report to the Chief TD the appeal in effect is > from one jurisdiction into that same > jurisdiction. When decisions are made by our > top TDs, who have consulted with other top TDs, > a panel of TDs will naturally be reluctant to > overturn the decision. > Players enjoy our tournaments in large part > because they perceive them to be fair. It's > important that we should be seen to do our > utmost to maintain that fairness. [nige1] I'm not a member of the ACBL but fear that if the America adopts director panels, then the civilised world may experience adverse repercussions. Typically, directors are much less (or much more skilful) than the players for whom they care. Players see the appeal committee as a jury of their peers sifting the facts but with their judgement constrained by subservience to the law. Often, however, the law is so woolly that nobody can understand it. Nevertheless, directors reach an uneasy consensus among themselves. Good appeals committees expose such anomalies and apply natural justice to generate valuable case law. From mandache at free.fr Wed Jul 5 10:36:53 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Wed Jul 5 10:38:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? Message-ID: <1152088613.44ab7a257ef8a@imp2-g19.free.fr> Selon Steve Wright : > > Where I play, it is the norm for singletons and cards of touching rank > to be played automatically by dummy in tempo. > That means that, automatically, declarer implicitly accepts the play, so I would rule 'revoke established' whenever declarer doesn't prevent dummy from playi... er... placing the card in a played position. Best, Manuela From ienj.boswijk at hccnet.nl Wed Jul 5 14:18:18 2006 From: ienj.boswijk at hccnet.nl (Joost Boswijk) Date: Wed Jul 5 14:18:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <200607041841.k64IfiNp016209@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: Andr? Steffens wrote > We discussed a similar case on the dutch forum a few days ago. How about > stating that Law 46 B applies here: > Incomplete or Erroneous Call > In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be > played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when > declarer's > different intention is incontrovertible): > > Declarer's intention to play the singleton is incontrovertible, so Law 45D > does not come into play > In that case the declarer had three spades left in a NT contract. He played a high spade, after the LHO had played the dummy placed a low spade in the played position and the RHO played. At that moment the declarer realised that the spades didn't run, because the highest spade was still in the dummy. Since he had not ordered the dummy to play in that trick, he wanted to change the card from the dummy and called the TD. In the discussion about this case the majority of the Dutch TD's didn't allow the declarer to change the card 'played' by the dummy. IMO the laws do give the declarer the right to change, since he didn't name that card, in fact he didn't name any card at all. OTOH, the declarer could and should have said 'high spade' or something of the sort and prevented the dummy from 'playing'. As TD I would have used L12A1. Regards Joost Boswijk From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 5 14:19:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jul 5 14:21:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs In-Reply-To: <001201c69fbc$7742c390$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > An AC can not overrule the Director on a matter of Law or regulation > (L94B3); the duty of an AC is to try the Director's judgments. > Consequently it is more important for members of the AC to be > competent bridge players than to be competent "bridge lawyers". ACs can, and do, overrule TDs on points of law (whether they should is a different matter). ACs may discover new information which brings a matter of law on which a TD has not ruled into play. OTOH the ruling they are reviewing (if it is a judgement one) should be only to a degree the "TD's Judgement" since the TD should have consulted people of relevant playing ability before making such a ruling. It simply isn't an issue of "more important". The competence of an AC is a function of both its legal knowledge and its bridge knowledge - we should simply recognise that individuals with the requisite amount of both types of knowledge are only slightly more common than hen's teeth and that ACs should be blended appropriately. BTW, my understanding of ACs in the US is that they do not "review the director's ruling" but rather "review the case and give a ruling" - making the requisite technical knowledge even more vital. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 5 15:36:23 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jul 5 15:37:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6a038$02578260$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > > An AC can not overrule the Director on a matter of Law or regulation > > (L94B3); the duty of an AC is to try the Director's judgments. > > Consequently it is more important for members of the AC to be > > competent bridge players than to be competent "bridge lawyers". > > ACs can, and do, overrule TDs on points of law (whether they should is a > different matter). ACs may discover new information which brings a > matter of law on which a TD has not ruled into play. OTOH the ruling > they are reviewing (if it is a judgement one) should be only to a degree > the "TD's Judgement" since the TD should have consulted people of > relevant playing ability before making such a ruling. > It simply isn't an issue of "more important". The competence of an AC > is a function of both its legal knowledge and its bridge knowledge - we > should simply recognise that individuals with the requisite amount of > both types of knowledge are only slightly more common than hen's teeth > and that ACs should be blended appropriately. > > BTW, my understanding of ACs in the US is that they do not "review the > director's ruling" but rather "review the case and give a ruling" - > making the requisite technical knowledge even more vital. > > Tim Let me quote Law 93B3 (sorry, I wrote L94 instead of L93 in my first comment): In adjudicating appeals the Committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to the Director that he change his ruling. And there is a footnote (25): Zonal organizations may establish differing conditions of appeals for special contests. IMO this law is clear enough and is binding on ACs unless ZO has established "differing conditions" for the particular contest. What ACs do is a different matter; I have seen ACs violating this law, but that does not legalize their rulings. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 5 16:58:05 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 5 16:59:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs In-Reply-To: <001201c69fbc$7742c390$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <001201c69fbc$7742c390$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060705104209.030117a0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:52 PM 7/4/06, Sven wrote: > > Adam wrote: > > > > > "Item 062-90: NABC Appeals > > > ACBL Tournament Directors shall hear and rule upon all appeals filed > > > at North American Bridge Championships. All NABC+ appeals shall be > > > heard by Tournament Director Panels in a manner similar to regional > > > appeal hearings (Ref: 983-02, 992-02). All conduct and Ethics matters > > > shall be referred to and heard by the NABC Tournament Committee or to > > > their assignees." > >An AC can not overrule the Director on a matter of Law or regulation >(L94B3); the duty of an AC is to try the Director's judgments. >Consequently >it is more important for members of the AC to be competent bridge players >than to be competent "bridge lawyers". I think this is the key point. L93 *already* places the responsibility for dealing with appeals on points of "Law or regulations" on the CTD, whose judgment may not be overruled by the AC. AC members are responsible for ruling on points of fact or of "bridge judgment". TDs are no better than others at determining facts based on presented evidence, and may be unable to do so without, as others have pointed out, the (presumably unjustified) appearance of bias, as they would be passing on the judgment of their immediate colleagues. On fine points of bridge judgment, while we do have some TDs who are also very good players in their own right, they don't stack up to the best players at NABCs. What happens when an appeal involves adjudicating a Meckwell auction? Will the ACBL be able to find five TDs who understand their system? (OK, it may not be so easy to find five disinterested players who understand the Meckwell system, but it should be possible.) The bottom line seems to be, how can having the responsibility for adjudicating high-level appeals involve representatives of two different constituencies not be superior to involving just one? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 5 17:20:31 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 5 17:22:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs In-Reply-To: References: <001201c69fbc$7742c390$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060705110153.030169a0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:19 AM 7/5/06, twm wrote: >Sven wrote: > > > An AC can not overrule the Director on a matter of Law or regulation > > (L94B3); the duty of an AC is to try the Director's judgments. > > Consequently it is more important for members of the AC to be > > competent bridge players than to be competent "bridge lawyers". > >ACs can, and do, overrule TDs on points of law (whether they should is a >different matter). ACs may discover new information which brings a >matter of law on which a TD has not ruled into play. OTOH the ruling >they are reviewing (if it is a judgement one) should be only to a degree >the "TD's Judgement" since the TD should have consulted people of >relevant playing ability before making such a ruling. >It simply isn't an issue of "more important". The competence of an AC >is a function of both its legal knowledge and its bridge knowledge - we >should simply recognise that individuals with the requisite amount of >both types of knowledge are only slightly more common than hen's teeth >and that ACs should be blended appropriately. > >BTW, my understanding of ACs in the US is that they do not "review the >director's ruling" but rather "review the case and give a ruling" - >making the requisite technical knowledge even more vital. The current policy for NABC+ appeals requires that a TD be present or "readily available" to advise the AC on points of law or regulation; this is the existing mechanism for insuring that committees have "the requisite technical knowledge". The actual "business" of the voting members of the committee is supposed to be to determine the answers to questions as to either (a) what really happened (fact), or (b) what would (might) have happened if... (bridge judgment). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 5 17:30:44 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 5 17:32:24 2006 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <005901c69fd5$018ce860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <005901c69fd5$018ce860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060705112153.0301ce10@pop.starpower.net> At 09:47 PM 7/4/06, Guthrie wrote: >[Adam Wildavsky] > > I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let > > me pose a question. Suppose you were faced > > with a complete rewrite of the laws, with > > all the laws renumbered and reorganized and > > almost every law rewritten. How would you > > determine whether or not it was an improvement > > over the existing laws? I would compile a list of interested and knowledgeable (a) high-level TDs, (b) low-level (club) TDs, and (c) players, who were not directly involved in the rewrite. (Or, even better, I would have a previously compiled list already at hand.) I would send advance copies of the new laws to this panel, and ask them. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 5 17:50:56 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jul 5 17:52:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060705110153.030169a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000501c6a04a$cdab2f90$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >Sven wrote: > > > > > An AC can not overrule the Director on a matter of Law or regulation > > > (L94B3); the duty of an AC is to try the Director's judgments. > > > Consequently it is more important for members of the AC to be > > > competent bridge players than to be competent "bridge lawyers". > > > >ACs can, and do, overrule TDs on points of law (whether they should is a > >different matter). ACs may discover new information which brings a > >matter of law on which a TD has not ruled into play. OTOH the ruling > >they are reviewing (if it is a judgement one) should be only to a degree > >the "TD's Judgement" since the TD should have consulted people of > >relevant playing ability before making such a ruling. > >It simply isn't an issue of "more important". The competence of an AC > >is a function of both its legal knowledge and its bridge knowledge - we > >should simply recognise that individuals with the requisite amount of > >both types of knowledge are only slightly more common than hen's teeth > >and that ACs should be blended appropriately. > > > >BTW, my understanding of ACs in the US is that they do not "review the > >director's ruling" but rather "review the case and give a ruling" - > >making the requisite technical knowledge even more vital. > > The current policy for NABC+ appeals requires that a TD be present or > "readily available" to advise the AC on points of law or regulation; > this is the existing mechanism for insuring that committees have "the > requisite technical knowledge". The actual "business" of the voting > members of the committee is supposed to be to determine the answers to > questions as to either (a) what really happened (fact), or (b) what > would (might) have happened if... (bridge judgment). And not to forget questions like: Is a particular line of play irrational or inferior? Has there been illegal use of extraneous information from partner? Has a competitor been damaged by misinformation from opponents? This list can be extended ad lib. Regards Sven From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 5 18:09:40 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Jul 5 18:11:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Jul 2006 14:57:51 +0200." <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD6@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <200607051558.IAA03368@mailhub.irvine.com> > > Sven: > > Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; he "placed" his > single > > club in a played position. That is an essential and important > difference. > > Play : > 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the > first card, which is the lead. > > So, to 'place' a card is not an (illegal) play? When I looked over the Laws to try to answer the question, "Does dummy play the cards in the dummy?", I found, much to my surprise, that there is an ambiguity in the Laws. Laws 41D, 45B, and 45D seem to indicate that the answer is "no". Dummy does not play the cards; declarer plays the cards, and dummy just moves them around at declarer's command. 41D: ...Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy. 45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself. 45D: If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name ... Laws 42A3 and 44B, however, seem to indicate that the answer is "yes". 42A3: [Dummy] plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent as directed... 44B: After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card... Quite conceivably, nobody who worked on the Laws thought that it really mattered whether dummy or declarer was considered to play the cards from dummy. But now we've found a case where it does matter. (Really, someone should be tasked with studying carefully every possible combination of two or more Laws to make sure there are no such problems when several Laws are combined. My calculations show that there are only 9903520314283042199192993698 such combinations, so it shouldn't be a problem for someone to accomplish this in a few weeks.) Anyway, after looking at the above Law snippets, I think the answer to "Does dummy play his own cards?", at least for the purposes of applying the revoke laws, is "no". To me, the effect would be the same as if a kibitzer had placed dummy's singleton in the played position. Perhaps I could live with a ruling that since dummy violated Law 45F by placing a card in the played position without instruction, even though it was a singleton, it should be OK to penalize the partnership by making the revoke an established one. But my general feeling here is that declarer didn't play a card, and dummy doesn't participate in the play at all, therefore declarer gets to correct his previous revoke. Then both opponents get to take back their plays to the next trick, and the cards they played are AI for each other and UI for declarer (Law 16C). -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Jul 5 18:52:36 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Wed Jul 5 18:57:06 2006 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <005901c69fd5$018ce860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060705112153.0301ce10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005101c6a053$6c70cf60$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > > I would compile a list of interested and knowledgeable (a) high-level > TDs, (b) low-level (club) TDs, and (c) players, who were not directly > involved in the rewrite. (Or, even better, I would have a previously > compiled list already at hand.) I would send advance copies of the new > laws to this panel, and ask them. > Don't hold your breath. After attending a large number of LC meetings, I could see that most members feel that their expertise is sufficient and there is no need for outside help (even from the WBFLC!). Not meant for you, Adam. Suggestions that I have made for interpretations, e.g., did not even elicit a reply. The whole effort should have started with a request for recommendations from anyone. Even a lowly novice can have something worthwhile to suggest. A filtering committee could discard the obviously worthless suggestions. Then, sort those worth consideration into folders for each Law-specific item and a folder for general suggestions. Next, have the drafting committee consider the folder contents before writing anything. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 5 19:32:22 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jul 5 20:37:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <1152088613.44ab7a257ef8a@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <004101c6a060$dc9bf230$15a887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- +=+ I would say the statement in Law 57C is of interest. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuela Mandache" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established? Selon Steve Wright : > > Where I play, it is the norm for singletons and cards of touching rank > to be played automatically by dummy in tempo. > That means that, automatically, declarer implicitly accepts the play, so I would rule 'revoke established' whenever declarer doesn't prevent dummy from playi... er... placing the card in a played position. Best, Manuela _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 5 20:36:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jul 5 20:38:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs In-Reply-To: <000001c6a038$02578260$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > Let me quote Law 93B3 (sorry, I wrote L94 instead of L93 in my first > comment): > > In adjudicating appeals the Committee may exercise all powers > assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may > not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations, or on > exercise of his disciplinary powers. The committee may recommend to > the Director that he change his ruling. I would have thought we were all aware of which law you meant. The problem is that with no TD on the AC there is nobody to tell them that they may not overrule the TD on a particular point. Having a TD "readily available" as Eric mentions only works if the AC decides to ask the TD for advice. It doesn't help much if ACs produce illegal rulings. Eric also said "TDs are no better than others at determining facts based on presented evidence." While this might be true it should not be. Competent TDs should have considerable experience of table investigation/fact isolation (with requisite training as well) beyond that of normal players (albeit I recognise that some players will have day jobs that equip them with similar skills). We should recognise that top TDs are as expert in their field (only part of which is bridge law) as players like Meckstroth are in the field of play. It is the blend of such different types of expertise we should be seeking on ACs. Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 5 20:36:39 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jul 5 20:38:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <200607051558.IAA03368@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000601c6a061$f4654ff0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan > > > Sven: > > > Good point, but Dummy did not "play" his single club; he > > > "placed" his single club in a played position. That is > > > an essential and important difference. > > > > Play : > > 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, > > including the first card, which is the lead. > > > > So, to 'place' a card is not an (illegal) play? > > When I looked over the Laws to try to answer the question, > "Does dummy play the cards in the dummy?", I found, much to > my surprise, that there is an ambiguity in the Laws. This IMO is reading the laws in a similar way as a certain character is known to read the Holy Bible. > Laws 41D, 45B, and 45D seem to indicate that the answer is "no". > Dummy does not play the cards; declarer plays the cards, and dummy > just moves them around at declarer's command. > > 41D: ...Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy. > > 45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which > dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. In playing from > dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card > himself. > > 45D: If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not > name ... > > > Laws 42A3 and 44B, however, seem to indicate that the answer is > "yes". > > 42A3: [Dummy] plays the cards of the dummy as declarer's agent as > directed... > > 44B: After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card... > > > Quite conceivably, nobody who worked on the Laws thought that it > really mattered whether dummy or declarer was considered to play the > cards from dummy. But now we've found a case where it does matter. > (Really, someone should be tasked with studying carefully every > possible combination of two or more Laws to make sure there are no > such problems when several Laws are combined. My calculations show > that there are only 9903520314283042199192993698 such combinations, so > it shouldn't be a problem for someone to accomplish this in a few > weeks.) > > Anyway, after looking at the above Law snippets, I think the answer to > "Does dummy play his own cards?", at least for the purposes of > applying the revoke laws, is "no". To me, the effect would be the > same as if a kibitzer had placed dummy's singleton in the played > position. Perhaps I could live with a ruling that since dummy > violated Law 45F by placing a card in the played position without > instruction, even though it was a singleton, it should be OK to > penalize the partnership by making the revoke an established one. But > my general feeling here is that declarer didn't play a card, and dummy > doesn't participate in the play at all, therefore declarer gets to > correct his previous revoke. Then both opponents get to take back > their plays to the next trick, and the cards they played are AI for > each other and UI for declarer (Law 16C). At least you reach an acceptable conclusion, but your arguments involving Laws 42A3 and 44B are not up to your standards: Laws 42A3 says (as you correctly quote) "... as declarer's agent as directed..." which clearly means that Dummy may not "play" on his own initiative. Furthermore you omitted the very important continuation in this law: "(see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play)." So the only remaining law to indicate that Dummy can "play" a card after all is Law 44B provided that the player who becomes Dummy when the opening lead is faced (see Definitions) is still to be considered a "player" for the application of Law 44B. IMO the other laws you have quoted, and also in particular Law 45A (which you omitted), all clearly imply that "Dummy" is no "player" for the purpose of applying the laws. I think we can safely conclude that Dummy can never "play" a card. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 5 22:17:37 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 5 22:19:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs In-Reply-To: <000501c6a04a$cdab2f90$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060705110153.030169a0@pop.starpower.net> <000501c6a04a$cdab2f90$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060705161031.03089010@pop.starpower.net> At 11:50 AM 7/5/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > > > > The current policy for NABC+ appeals requires that a TD be present or > > "readily available" to advise the AC on points of law or regulation; > > this is the existing mechanism for insuring that committees have "the > > requisite technical knowledge". The actual "business" of the voting > > members of the committee is supposed to be to determine the answers to > > questions as to either (a) what really happened (fact), or (b) what > > would (might) have happened if... (bridge judgment). > >And not to forget questions like: Sure, there are lots of them. But they all pertain to either (a) or (b). >Is a particular line of play irrational or inferior? We need to decide this because TFLB instructs us to consider inferior plays but not irrational plays in determining what might have happened. >Has there been illegal use of extraneous information from partner? That's a question of fact -- was there EI from partner? -- and a question as to what might have happened -- might he have bid differently without the EI? >Has a competitor been damaged by misinformation from opponents? Another question as to what might have happened -- what would (might) he have done with correct information. >This list can be extended ad lib. Yup. But everything legimately on that list will come down to findings as to fact or bridge judgment, rather than as to law or regulation. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 5 22:23:43 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 5 22:25:15 2006 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <005101c6a053$6c70cf60$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <005901c69fd5$018ce860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060705112153.0301ce10@pop.starpower.net> <005101c6a053$6c70cf60$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060705161812.030925f0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:52 PM 7/5/06, Marvin wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > I would compile a list of interested and knowledgeable (a) >high-level > > TDs, (b) low-level (club) TDs, and (c) players, who were not >directly > > involved in the rewrite. (Or, even better, I would have a >previously > > compiled list already at hand.) I would send advance copies of >the new > > laws to this panel, and ask them. > >Don't hold your breath. Don't worry; I won't. >After attending a large number of LC >meetings, I could see that most members feel that their expertise is >sufficient and there is no need for outside help (even from the >WBFLC!). I feel the same way. I would never predict that the ACBLLC would be sensible enough to do what I would do. >Not meant for you, Adam. I wonder whether the LC knows that Adam has been so heretical as to solicit outside opinions on one of the questions before them. I strongly suspect that if they do, they do not, in general, approve. >Suggestions that I have made for interpretations, >e.g., did not even elicit a reply. Why doesn't this surprise me? >The whole effort should have started with a request for >recommendations from anyone. Even a lowly novice can have something >worthwhile to suggest. Of course it should have, but, as Marv advises, I would not hold my breath. >A filtering committee could discard the obviously worthless >suggestions. Then, sort those worth consideration into folders for >each Law-specific item and a folder for general suggestions. Next, >have the drafting committee consider the folder contents before >writing anything. Adam asked only what I would do -- that I can answer -- not what anyone would expect the LC to do. Not only do I not speak for the ACBLLC, but I'm sure they wouldn't like any of the things I might say if I did. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mandache at free.fr Wed Jul 5 23:08:47 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Wed Jul 5 22:58:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <004101c6a060$dc9bf230$15a887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <1152088613.44ab7a257ef8a@imp2-g19.free.fr> <004101c6a060$dc9bf230$15a887d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <1152133727.44ac2a5f0e73b@imp3-g19.free.fr> Selon Grattan Endicott : > > from Grattan Endicott > > +=+ I would say the statement in Law 57C is of interest. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree! The point is that one should not be allowed to break the law on a regular basis: > Selon Steve Wright : > > > > > Where I play, it is the norm for singletons and cards of touching rank > > to be played automatically by dummy in tempo. > > and then abide and be protected by it when that suits one. Cheers (cheers, cheers! The French did it, they'll play the final! But it's not Germany...) Manuela From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 00:33:32 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 00:35:15 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000001c69dd4$d83dbc70$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c69dd4$d83dbc70$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <3E9900B4-1EB8-4086-B5F3-574792AB58BA@rochester.rr.com> Grattan Endicott wrote: >> +=+ In my opinion "the Spades are running" >> is clear indication that he has miscounted Perhaps he has made an erroneous assumption about the distribution of the spades. After all, if they break 4-2 they *are* running. As for counting, having played one trick, all he *knows* is that each defender has at least one. From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 6 01:29:29 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Jul 6 01:29:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <000001c69f4c$859fefa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <000801c7013a$6a121790$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:30 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established? > >> Is the revoke established? >My first reaction was "Yes, of course, Dummy has played to the next trick" Nah, no revoke. A lot of wrist smacking though.Agree your analysis. NOs get to pick up a lot of cards free of charge, AI to them. John _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 6 01:32:15 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Jul 6 01:32:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Peter Pals" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:19 AM >But what about L63a1: A revoke becomes established when the offender or >his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, >**legal or illegal**, establishes the revoke). There was no play. Only declarer can play a card from dummy. The 63A1 applies to a play such as a revoke from a player in turn. I'm clear in my own mind on this one. Other interpretations cause 'orrible problems. |John >Cheers JP _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 6 01:36:32 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Jul 6 01:36:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <001001c69f6f$58b6a970$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002001c7013b$64d44680$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 1:39 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Revoke established? >> True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in cases that it >> does not matter, dummy may play automatically. You could say that >> declarer gives a silent command to play the club. Which makes the club a >> played card. > > What gave you that impression? (That they have a convention) I have a convention that if i put my 1C bidding card down the wrong way I'm psyching. It doesn't make this convention legal either :) John > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 6 02:00:22 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Jul 6 02:00:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <1152088613.44ab7a257ef8a@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <006101c7013e$ba975af0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuela Mandache" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established? Selon Steve Wright : > > Where I play, it is the norm for singletons and cards of touching rank > to be played automatically by dummy in tempo. > >That means that, automatically, declarer implicitly accepts the play, so I >would >rule 'revoke established' whenever declarer doesn't prevent dummy from >playi... >er... placing the card in a played position. I don't have a problem with an illegal custom. the card is still "not played". I have no problems with players tapping their final passes, but when 4th seat emerges with a double he has made the double in turn, and i insist the missing pass cards are now placed on the table. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet, Act 1, Scene V <----- Arghhh a roman five! best, John >Best, >Manuela _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 06:26:17 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 06:27:55 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2006, at 5:01 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Disagree. The timing of the claim shows South thought spades > couldn't be a problem anymore. > The fact that West discards won't deter him from that. No? Suppose he thought they wouldn't be a problem because they were breaking 4-2 or 3-3? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 06:28:11 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 06:29:47 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2006, at 12:01 PM, John Probst wrote: > For me it depends on the wording he used. If he specifically claims > the > "spades are running" I'll stick him with it. If he just says 5 > spades, 3D, > 3H and a club I'll let him spot the error. As I said elsewhere I'm > trying to > get into his head. Maybe you should ask him why he said what he did. If he in fact miscounted, that's one thing, but if he simply assumed a distribution that turned out not to exist, that's another thing entirely. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 06:32:24 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 06:34:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAF0@rama.Micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAF0@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <4C43AD5F-304B-4F19-A1BF-42D46088A361@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 4, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Sinot Martin wrote: > True, but this pair apparently has the convention that in cases > that it > does not matter, dummy may play automatically. You could say that > declarer gives a silent command to play the club. Which makes the > club a > played card. That's quite a stretch. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 06:34:44 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 06:36:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD6@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD6@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> Message-ID: <1C52DF0F-193C-47F6-9B04-1A8B67E98383@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 4, 2006, at 8:57 AM, Jan Peter Pals wrote: > Play : > 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including > the > first card, which is the lead. > > So, to 'place' a card is not an (illegal) play? Not according to the last sentence of Law 41D. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 06:36:11 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 06:37:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c69f4c$859fefa0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <1152013342.44aa541e1fec4@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <3BA2B0F5-B746-48A0-850F-B4EDC8D40FB2@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 4, 2006, at 10:01 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: > The card was played- by dummy, [it was > intended to be played no less] and it was played before the revoke was > corrected. Therefore the revoke was established L63A1 /A2. Nope. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 06:45:40 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 06:47:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAFB@rama.Micronas.com> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAFB@rama.Micronas.com> Message-ID: <168547A3-4260-45CF-B37B-3654F9AA500D@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 4, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Sinot Martin wrote: > My experience is that when dummy plays a card without a command from > declarer, it is usually a long standing habit of the pair. Therefore I > would rule that declarer gave a silent command to play the > singleton, hence > the singleton be played, and the revoke established. Next time, dummy > will think twice before playing cards on his own. Seems to me that our job as directors is to determine the facts, not make assumptions. At least, not to make them when the facts *can* be determined. A better ruling, IMO, would be to rule the revoke not established, but give the declaring side a PP for dummy's failure to observe laws 42A3, 43A1(c), and 45B. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 06:49:34 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 06:51:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <200607041841.k64IfiNp016209@smtp30.hccnet.nl> References: <200607041841.k64IfiNp016209@smtp30.hccnet.nl> Message-ID: On Jul 4, 2006, at 2:41 PM, Andr? Steffens wrote: > We discussed a similar case on the dutch forum a few days ago. How > about > stating that Law 46 B applies here: > Incomplete or Erroneous Call > In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card > to be > played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when > declarer's > different intention is incontrovertible): > > Declarer's intention to play the singleton is incontrovertible, so > Law 45D > does not come into play Jesus. Kaplan's "decide how you want to rule and then find a law that allows it" was bad enough. This "stretch the law all out of shape until it sorta fits how you want to rule" is.... words fail me. :-( From mandache at free.fr Thu Jul 6 08:48:28 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Thu Jul 6 08:49:59 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <1152168508.44acb23c82fa8@imp2-g19.free.fr> Selon Ed Reppert : > > On Jul 3, 2006, at 12:01 PM, John Probst wrote: > > > For me it depends on the wording he used. If he specifically claims > > the > > "spades are running" I'll stick him with it. If he just says 5 > > spades, 3D, > > 3H and a club I'll let him spot the error. As I said elsewhere I'm > > trying to > > get into his head. > > Maybe you should ask him why he said what he did. If he in fact > miscounted, that's one thing, but if he simply assumed a distribution > that turned out not to exist, that's another thing entirely. > Well, I was there, declarer miscounted. She had already made a remark on the lines of 'the spades won't do this to me, will they' and very carefully watched the first trick in the colour. She was completely taken aback when RHO (that was me, actually) rejected the claim. Best, Manuela From mandache at free.fr Thu Jul 6 09:35:24 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Thu Jul 6 09:36:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <006101c7013e$ba975af0$0701a8c0@john> References: <1152088613.44ab7a257ef8a@imp2-g19.free.fr> <006101c7013e$ba975af0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <1152171324.44acbd3c7b0d4@imp2-g19.free.fr> Selon John Probst : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manuela Mandache" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:36 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established? > > > Selon Steve Wright : > > > > > Where I play, it is the norm for singletons and cards of touching rank > > to be played automatically by dummy in tempo. > > > > >That means that, automatically, declarer implicitly accepts the play, so I > >would > >rule 'revoke established' whenever declarer doesn't prevent dummy from > >playi... > >er... placing the card in a played position. > > I don't have a problem with an illegal custom. the card is still "not > played". I've already been told I'm stubborn, so none of your reactions will surprise me :o) I just want to understand the mechanisms of enlarging my philosophy... My statement: if players systematically break the law, they cannot be allowed to pretend they were obeying it the very single time this really matters, and take advantage of it. Is this just an irrelevant (or wrong?!?) moral jugdement? Should I keep to the literal application of the law? Thank you, Manuela From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 6 10:42:51 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Jul 6 10:35:38 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060706103321.02088070@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:26 6/07/2006 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >No? Suppose he thought they wouldn't be a problem because they were >breaking 4-2 or 3-3? One doesn't claim just because one merely thinks cards are dealt in a certain way. One does because one knows all problems of the deal are solved. Claiming is the same as saying "I'm 100% certain where my tricks are coming from". Here, declarer knows he has all tricks from the spade suit. Except that he hasn't, of course. Look at the timing of the claim. He claimed after testing spades once. This means he thought that "now each defender has followed suit, spades can't be badly breaking anymore". I saw it at an exam for the title of local TD : if you have 8 trumps, pull 2 rounds and everyone follows twice, and then you claim, it means you're conscious that, now, trumps can't be breaking badly, so the fact that you don't state there is an outstanding trump isn't a problem. You're supposed to pull a third round. However, if you pull 1 round, play on another suit and then claim, you're supposed to have forgotten there is a trump at large. Regards Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 6 11:30:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jul 6 11:32:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <1152171324.44acbd3c7b0d4@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: Manuela wrote: > My statement: if players systematically break the law, they cannot be > allowed to pretend they were obeying it the very single time this > really matters, and take advantage of it. But perhaps the circumstances are different that one time. Normally declarer is watching dummy when such singletons are played, he condones (whether by nod or omission) the offence by dummy, opps also condone it, no problem. In the revoke scenario one might establish that declarer was studying his hand at the time of dummy's offence, in no way condoned it, and indeed drew attention to the issue at his first possible opportunity. He isn't "pretending" to have obeyed the law, he isn't even pretending that he usually obeys the law, he was obeying the law *this time* and is thus entitled to the protection that law affords. Personally I recommend that all tables be equipped with a wooden ruler which declarer can use to rap dummy's knuckles smartly whenever a card is picked up without instruction. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 6 11:30:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jul 6 11:32:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Appeals Committees at ACBL NABCs In-Reply-To: <004b01c7013d$3b2ce7e0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: John wrote: > > I don't know about the US but over here I can't think of many EBU > > TDs who are more than third rate players (and some pretty good TDs > > are about eighth rate players). Likewise I cannot think of many > > first rate players who have any real understanding of (or interest > > in) the laws. > > Since an AC (for a quality event) needs both bridge and legal > > knowledge a combination of 1TD+2 top players (or 2TDs and 1 one > > top player) would seem the least one should be considering. > > Strongly disagree. See my other post. It's just possible I'm one of > the few who both can and can't, but the TD instruction to the AC is > an absolute requirement of a competent TD. Sorry John I don't understand. If the ruling is going to appeal I'd expect the TD to be less than competent in at least 60% of cases (probably more). We simply cannot rely on the AC having been instructed competently - there aren't enough top flight TDs to cover the floor at (e.g.) Brighton. There are enough to ensure that one is sitting on every AC. Indeed even if the TD gives competent instruction we cannot always rely on AC members to follow those instructions. Note that I am not requiring that a TD on the panel be an official at the given event. Someone like Gordon (while competing at Brighton) could serve to ensure that an AC comprising say Townsend and Sandquist is kept on the legal rails. He isn't in the same class as a player, they aren't in the same class (as far as I am aware) as to TD skills and legal/OB knowledge. Tim From mandache at free.fr Thu Jul 6 12:20:31 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Thu Jul 6 12:22:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1152181231.44ace3ef19d14@imp2-g19.free.fr> Selon Tim West-Meads : > Manuela wrote: > > > My statement: if players systematically break the law, they cannot be > > allowed to pretend they were obeying it the very single time this > > really matters, and take advantage of it. > > But perhaps the circumstances are different that one time. Normally > declarer is watching dummy when such singletons are played, he condones > (whether by nod or omission) the offence by dummy, opps also condone it, > no problem. In the revoke scenario one might establish that declarer > was studying his hand at the time of dummy's offence, in no way condoned > it, and indeed drew attention to the issue at his first possible > opportunity. He isn't "pretending" to have obeyed the law, he isn't > even pretending that he usually obeys the law, he was obeying the law > *this time* and is thus entitled to the protection that law affords. That's it, I eventually got there! There's no automatic ruling, TD has to establish the moment declarer discovered the revoke - before or after he condoned dummy's action; declarer can't be presumed guilty just because he is always guilty in similar situation. Well, good luck to us. > > Personally I recommend that all tables be equipped with a wooden ruler > which declarer can use to rap dummy's knuckles smartly whenever a card > is picked up without instruction. And a whip to use on declarer whenever he fails to use the ruler on dummy. Best, Manuela From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 6 13:59:00 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Jul 6 14:00:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: "Jan Peter Pals" ; "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 19:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jan Peter Pals" > To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 11:19 AM > > > >But what about L63a1: A revoke becomes established when the offender or > >his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, > >**legal or illegal**, establishes the revoke). > > There was no play. Once again John's keen insight is profound. I suggest examining the effect: Now For the sake of demonstration consider dummy's hand where a spade is the OL and the SA is singleton in dummy. Dummy uninstructed plops it in a played position. At T3 it is pointed out that no card from dummy was +played+ to T1. Since the SA has not been played it +must+ be returned to dummy's hand whereby T1 is defective and thus was won by one of the three cards +played+ to it. Per L67 T1 must be corrected and one of dummy's cards added to T1- ostensibly the ace. And that correction does not affect ownership of T1. regards roger pewick > Only declarer can play a card from dummy. The 63A1 > applies to a play such as a revoke from a player in turn. I'm clear in my > own mind on this one. Other interpretations cause 'orrible problems. |John > >Cheers JP From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 6 15:01:35 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jul 6 15:11:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAFB@rama.Micronas.com> <168547A3-4260-45CF-B37B-3654F9AA500D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <004c01c6a0fd$b5befac0$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > A better ruling, IMO, would be to rule the > revoke not established, but give the > declaring side a PP for dummy's failure to > observe laws 42A3, 43A1(c), and 45B. [nige1] Ed injects some common sense to put this pathetic debate out of its misery :) From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 6 15:46:08 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jul 6 15:46:03 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <007b01c6a102$899cd0c0$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Manuela Mandache] > AQJ95 > A62 > AK8 > 86 > 2 T7643 > Q873 K4 > 9754 J2 > 5432 QJ97 > K8 > JT95 > QT63 > AKT > 3NT by South, OL: C4 > 1st trick: C4, 6, J, A > 2nd one: HJ, 3, 2, K > 3rd: C7, K, 2, 8 > 4th: HT, 7, 6, 4 > 5th: H5, 8, A, D2 > 6th: S5, 3, K, 2 > Now declarer plays S8 and concomitantly shows > his hand saying "Four tricks in spades and I > have the DQ." TD! [nige1] A few years ago, directors would all rule that declarer takes 4 spade tricks and defenders take the rest. Nowadays most directors convince themselves that slavishly following a mistaken claim is "irrational" for this "class of player". In this case, a sensible director would still rule against declarer, because he would insist that declarer discards a couple of diamonds on the spades - a perfectly rational play if you know the spades are good. The current law is unnecessarily complex and still inconsistently enforced. Also, it does not always achieve its main aim -- to speed up the play and stop a sadistic declarer forcing opponents to sweat over non-existent problems. For declarer's claims a much better rule has been suggested several times in BLML. When he judges that there is no more to the play, declarer is encouraged to place his cards face up on the table. He does not need to explain a line of play although it is courteous so to do. Defenders may dispute the claim by asking declarer to play on -- without consulting each other. Again, it is considered bad form, for defenders to prolong the play unnecessarily. Perhaps WBFLC could convene a meeting for tonight or tomorrow morning and urgently pass such a law? It is not so simple to cope with defenders' claims. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 6 16:11:57 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jul 6 16:11:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> <3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> > Which rules? There are laws (and regulations) > which define proper procedure. Players should > certainly know those (and many do not). > There are some laws which specify what to do > when an irregularity occurs. Those are the > purview, IMO, of the director. All players > need to know, then, is Law 9B - which tells > them to call the director. Or (Law 9A) they > can ignore the irregularity and live with the > result. There are some other laws, too, which > don't really seem to fit into "proper > procedure" or "correcting irregularities" (the > scoring, the proprieties, the preliminaries). > Some of those are important to players, some > to directors. [nige1] By "rules" I mean all the rules of Bridge... [A] TFLB, relevant minutes, commentaries, appeals and so on that have the force of law. [B] Zonal regulations -- like the EBU Orange Book; and (I guess) some parts of the EBU White book and TD instructions. [C] Local conditions of contest. [D] Any other "Bridge rule" I've missed. TFLB by the WBFLC should include all necessary rules. WBF may be powerless to prevent other organisations producing their own variants -- but local organisations should not be forced to do so -- as they currently are. Almost all rules are of practical concern to the player. For example, under current law, a player may decide not to draw attention to an infraction because he judges that the likely ruling by a director will not be as favourable as the result he can expect without the director's intervention. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 6 16:09:46 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jul 6 16:20:04 2006 Subject: Fw: [blml] Amnesia Message-ID: <007401c6a106$06bf3db0$39a487d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Peter Eidt" ; "BLML" Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 12:24 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Amnesia +=+ Just discussed in Laws Drafting Subcommittee. We have added words to clarify that the led card is played and cannot be withdrawn. The correct defender will make his lead. +=+ < +=+ I was wrong about that. The word used is 'play' (prematurely) and 'led' is specifically excluded. ~ G ~ +=+ From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Jul 6 16:23:42 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu Jul 6 16:25:22 2006 Subject: [blml] claim Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209DD@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- For declarer's claims a much better rule has been suggested several times in BLML. When he judges that there is no more to the play, declarer is encouraged to place his cards face up on the table. He does not need to explain a line of play although it is courteous so to do. Defenders may dispute the claim by asking declarer to play on -- without consulting each other. _______________________________________________ Dummy has DK10x and declarer shows DAJx, "the rest". Good players will make sure the objection comes randomly from either defender; but against many players declarer will make the test. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Thu Jul 6 16:54:16 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Jul 6 16:55:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:45:40 EDT." <168547A3-4260-45CF-B37B-3654F9AA500D@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200607061442.HAA13095@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Jul 4, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Sinot Martin wrote: > > > My experience is that when dummy plays a card without a command from > > declarer, it is usually a long standing habit of the pair. Therefore I > > would rule that declarer gave a silent command to play the > > singleton, hence > > the singleton be played, and the revoke established. Next time, dummy > > will think twice before playing cards on his own. > > Seems to me that our job as directors is to determine the facts, not > make assumptions. At least, not to make them when the facts *can* be > determined. > > A better ruling, IMO, would be to rule the revoke not established, > but give the declaring side a PP for dummy's failure to observe laws > 42A3, 43A1(c), and 45B. Actually, I think the PP might be a bit harsh, at least around where I play. Unfortunately, although dummy is violating the law by playing the singleton without instruction, it's a violation that causes no problem 99.9999999% of the time. In fact, besides the situation that started this thread (the likes of which I've never personally seen), I can't even think of a problem it would cause, other than at trick 1. So there's never been any incentive for the ACBL or anyone else to make sure that players are aware of this rule and follow it. In this situation, to suddenly assess a penalty for an illegal practice that the ACBL and other organizations (and other players in general) tolerate and have made no attempt to educate players on, and that almost never causes a problem, doesn't seem just. (I think trick 1 is an exception. When dummy comes down, declarer needs time to study it and play the play. If dummy plays a singleton too quickly, and third hand plays quickly, and declarer is still forming a plan, he may feel forced to play from hand quickly or give the impression that he had a problem on that particular trick. Thus, while I prefer my partners not to play singletons from dummy without my instruction anyway, I feel especially strongly about this at the first trick.) -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Thu Jul 6 17:01:16 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Jul 6 17:02:50 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:42:51 +0200." <5.1.0.14.0.20060706103321.02088070@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <200607061449.HAA13229@mailhub.irvine.com> Alain wrote: > At 00:26 6/07/2006 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > >No? Suppose he thought they wouldn't be a problem because they were > >breaking 4-2 or 3-3? > > One doesn't claim just because one merely thinks cards are dealt in a > certain way. One does because one knows all problems of the deal are > solved. Claiming is the same as saying "I'm 100% certain where my tricks > are coming from". That's true if the "one" in your sentence is me. But I'm especially careful about claims. Many players are not. I've seen plenty of claims where declarers just assume that the key suit won't break 4-0 because they didn't think of that possibility. (In fact, the reason I'm especially careful about claims is that I made a bad one in Seattle in 1993. The low-intermediate players I played against didn't notice there was anything wrong with the claim, and they accepted it. But I realized halfway into the next round that all the problems hadn't been solved, and that there were possible layouts that would make my claim unsuccessful. I resolved after that never to claim until I was 100% sure there were no more problems.) I'm not saying Ed is right about what this declarer thought. But from my experience, it's a definite possibility. -- Adam From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Jul 6 17:14:13 2006 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin French) Date: Thu Jul 6 17:18:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC AppealN-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> <3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com> <009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002401c6a10e$d8e15d20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> From: "Guthrie" > > TFLB by the WBFLC should include all necessary > rules. WBF may be powerless to prevent other > organisations producing their own variants -- but > local organisations should not be forced to do > so -- as they currently are. > > Almost all rules are of practical concern to the > player. For example, under current law, a player > may decide not to draw attention to an infraction > because he judges that the likely ruling by a > director will not be as favourable as the result > he can expect without the director's intervention. Tennis has two versions of the rules, a small booklet for players and a huge one for umpires. Bridge should have the same, one for players and one for TDs. If players want to know the Laws in detail, as you suggest some might, they could buy the TD version. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 18:42:47 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 18:44:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Roger Pewick wrote: > Now For the sake of demonstration consider dummy's hand where a > spade is the > OL and the SA is singleton in dummy. Dummy uninstructed plops it in a > played position. At T3 it is pointed out that no card from dummy was > +played+ to T1. Since the SA has not been played it +must+ be > returned to > dummy's hand whereby T1 is defective and thus was won by one of the > three > cards +played+ to it. Per L67 T1 must be corrected and one of > dummy's cards > added to T1- ostensibly the ace. And that correction does not affect > ownership of T1. In adjudicating situations at the table, we do, I hope, take a common sense approach to the laws. It is only here, on blml, (and I suppose in similar away from the table discussions) that people introduce nonsense. What is the purpose? To show the laws are flawed? Yeah, we know that. I can think of several other possible - and generally unflattering - reasons, but never mind. If you believe the laws are flawed, Roger, suggest some improvements. Pointing out how enforcing the law in one real world situation might lead to hypothetical problems in other highly unlikely situations is not productive. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 18:43:59 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 18:45:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <004c01c6a0fd$b5befac0$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAFB@rama.Micronas.com> <168547A3-4260-45CF-B37B-3654F9AA500D@rochester.rr.com> <004c01c6a0fd$b5befac0$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Guthrie wrote: > Ed injects some common sense to put this > pathetic debate out of its misery :) On blml, it seems, nearly *every* thread is "the thread that would not die". :-( From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 18:56:04 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 18:57:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <200607061442.HAA13095@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200607061442.HAA13095@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Actually, I think the PP might be a bit harsh, at least around where I > play. Heh. Around here, it would be unheard of. Nonetheless, I stand by my statement. Consider that a PP can consist of a warning. > Unfortunately, although dummy is violating the law by playing > the singleton without instruction, it's a violation that causes no > problem 99.9999999% of the time. In fact, besides the situation that > started this thread (the likes of which I've never personally seen), I > can't even think of a problem it would cause, other than at trick 1. > So there's never been any incentive for the ACBL or anyone else to > make sure that players are aware of this rule and follow it. In this > situation, to suddenly assess a penalty for an illegal practice that > the ACBL and other organizations (and other players in general) > tolerate and have made no attempt to educate players on, and that > almost never causes a problem, doesn't seem just. Maybe not. I seem to remember a police officer once who, having stopped me for speeding, responded to my complaint that most other drivers had been passing me with "Yeah, but I got *you*." Was that just? :-) > (I think trick 1 is an exception. When dummy comes down, declarer > needs time to study it and play the play. If dummy plays a singleton > too quickly, and third hand plays quickly, and declarer is still > forming a plan, he may feel forced to play from hand quickly or give > the impression that he had a problem on that particular trick. Thus, > while I prefer my partners not to play singletons from dummy without > my instruction anyway, I feel especially strongly about this at the > first trick.) Last night, as dummy, partner led the ace of a suit. My RHO followed, and I sat there. Partner said "play low, please". Then he led the King, and I did it again. "Play," he said in an exasperated tone. :-) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 18:59:40 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 19:01:16 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <1152168508.44acb23c82fa8@imp2-g19.free.fr> References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> <1152168508.44acb23c82fa8@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <63C1195B-5358-486C-AC16-0B12FFB165C1@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Manuela Mandache wrote: > Well, I was there, declarer miscounted In your opinion. :-) On the evidence presented, I'm not so sure. It's a judgement call - and the judgement that counts is the TD's. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 19:01:08 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 19:02:43 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060706103321.02088070@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060706103321.02088070@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <527D5428-6E82-46D9-B610-8717C6DD55CE@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 6, 2006, at 4:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > One doesn't claim just because one merely thinks cards are dealt in > a certain way. That ain't necessarily so, Alain. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 6 19:03:39 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 6 19:05:15 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <200607061449.HAA13229@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200607061449.HAA13229@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6486E0B2-F969-401B-9874-0474034FB582@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 6, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I'm not saying Ed is right about what this declarer thought. I don't *know* what he thought. My point was that neither does anybody else. :-) From adam at irvine.com Thu Jul 6 19:09:36 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Jul 6 19:11:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:56:04 EDT." Message-ID: <200607061658.JAA14353@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > > [Adam:] > > In this > > situation, to suddenly assess a penalty for an illegal practice that > > the ACBL and other organizations (and other players in general) > > tolerate and have made no attempt to educate players on, and that > > almost never causes a problem, doesn't seem just. > > Maybe not. I seem to remember a police officer once who, having > stopped me for speeding, responded to my complaint that most other > drivers had been passing me with "Yeah, but I got *you*." Was that > just? :-) Presumably you saw (or should have seen) a speed limit sign, so you were warned. If there are similar signs around the club or tournament location saying, "DUMMY: DO NOT PLAY UNTIL DECLARER TELLS YOU WHAT TO PLAY", then I'd certainly see nothing unjust about a PP. -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 6 19:06:44 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jul 6 19:29:24 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <007b01c6a102$899cd0c0$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> <010501c6a110$7574dee0$0201a8c0@laptop> Message-ID: <004e01c6a121$bd645620$1d9868d5@jeushtlj> [Ciska Zuur] This [defenders disputing a claim by asking declarer to play on -- without consulting each other] will not make life easier, because they don't have to consult each other to get the picture when both of them are complaining.. [nige1] Declarer must play on unless defenders concede. Defenders can dispute the claim simply by failing to concede. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 6 19:28:38 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jul 6 19:29:27 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209DD@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <004f01c6a121$be3e8980$1d9868d5@jeushtlj> [Robin Barker] > Dummy has DK10x and declarer shows DAJx, "the > rest". Good players will make sure the > objection comes randomly from either defender; > but against many players declarer will make > the test. [nige1] The prospect of removing all the tar and feathers may deter Declarer. Anyway, I bet there are other existing rules to invoke against that sort of behaviour. Bridge base Online and other sites, successfully enforce this simplified claims protocol. In practice, I haven't met a problem. Has anybody else? I accept Robin's argument, however: the potential for abuse by an unethical declarer is a downside. Are there other downsides? Probably! Do all possible downsides outweigh the downsides (complexity, inconsistency) of existing claim law? You know my view. What do others think? From adam at irvine.com Thu Jul 6 19:42:44 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Jul 6 19:44:17 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:28:38 BST." <004f01c6a121$be3e8980$1d9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <200607061731.KAA14642@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > I accept Robin's argument, however: the potential > for abuse by an unethical declarer is a downside. > Are there other downsides? Probably! Do all > possible downsides outweigh the downsides > (complexity, inconsistency) of existing claim law? > You know my view. What do others think? I think Robin's downside, all by itself, outweighs the downsides of existing claim law. The inconsistencies and ambiguities in the claim laws provide fodder for lots of arguments on BLML (which may or may not be a downside---it's actually an upside for those BLMLers for whom this sort of argument is a fun hobby). But from what I've seen, claim problems aren't a significant fraction of the "real" problems that tournament players encounter. I believe the vast majority of cases that get appealed have to do with UI and MI (all of the small number of appeals that I've been involved in have dealt with one of those two). The "bad claim" cases that I've been involved with at the table have all been dealt with pretty quickly and easily. So while those who tend to see things abstractly may see claim laws as a big problem, because we have such long and fantastic arguments about how to apply them, I don't see them as broken enough to warrant an overhaul that could open the door to a real problem such as the one Robin described. -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 6 20:21:32 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jul 6 20:21:27 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <200607061731.KAA14642@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <009101c6a129$02539140$1d9868d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Beneschan] > I think Robin's downside, all by itself, > outweighs the downsides of existing claim law. > The inconsistencies and ambiguities in the > claim laws provide fodder for lots of > arguments on BLML (which may or may not be > a downside---it's actually an upside for > those BLMLers for whom this sort of argument > is a fun hobby). [nige1] BLMLers do exploit the woolly nature of a lot of existing law for their enjoyment :) [Adam] > But from what I've seen, claim problems aren't > a significant fraction of the "real" problems > that tournament players encounter. I believe > the vast majority of cases that get appealed > have to do with UI and MI (all of the small > number of appeals that I've been involved in > have dealt with one of those two). [nige1] MI and UI are more difficult to police -- although BLML has come up with promising suggestions. [Adam] > The "bad claim" cases that I've been involved > with at the table have all been dealt with > pretty quickly and easily. So while those who > tend to see things abstractly may see claim > laws as a big problem, because we have such > long and fantastic arguments about how to apply > them, I don't see them as broken enough to > warrant an overhaul that could open the door > to a real problem such as the one Robin > described. [nige1] Players often complain about claims rulings. In similar contexts, different directors rule differently. On BLML, such discrepancies are worrying. At the table, anomalies engender discontent. BTW, current claims law is not just complex and hard to apply consistently. If the current law is applied by a strict director, declarers are reluctant to claim - slowing down the game. If the director is friendly and relaxed then it may pay to make faulty claims. Some defenders accede to such claims. If the director is a good player, he may be able to spot a recovery that you would have missed. IMO the nice aspect of claims law is that it is relatively easy to improve it. From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Thu Jul 6 20:30:59 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Thu Jul 6 20:32:32 2006 Subject: [blml] claim Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209DF@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan Sent: 06 July 2006 18:43 To: BLML Cc: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [blml] claim Nigel wrote: > I accept Robin's argument, however: the potential > for abuse by an unethical declarer is a downside. > Are there other downsides? Probably! Do all > possible downsides outweigh the downsides > (complexity, inconsistency) of existing claim law? > You know my view. What do others think? I think Robin's downside, all by itself, outweighs the downsides of existing claim law. -- Adam _______________________________________________ I had always assumed that the primary purpose of the claim laws, and the reason why there is no play after the claim, is to prevent declarer gaining an example by claiming, for instance from the reaction of the opponents. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Thu Jul 6 20:32:40 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Jul 6 20:34:13 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:21:32 BST." <009101c6a129$02539140$1d9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <200607061821.LAA15100@mailhub.irvine.com> > [nige1] > Players often complain about claims rulings. Maybe that's been your experience. I don't recall ever hearing any complaint about a claim ruling in all the time I've played. However, I've never directed. If others' experience is significantly different from mine, I'll accept that I'm wrong and that there may be some benefit to some changes in the claim laws. [snip] > IMO the nice aspect of claims law is that it is > relatively easy to improve it. It's certainly relatively easy to improve it in ways that cause new problems, as Robin has pointed out. Improving it so that existing problems are alleviated without creating new ones is, I suspect, not so easy. You may think that the inconsistency problem is so horrible that it's worthwhile to introduce a new way for an unethical declarer to cheat in order to solve the problem. I don't. -- Adam From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 6 21:06:45 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jul 6 21:08:19 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209DF@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <000201c6a12f$535d8310$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Robin Barker ............. > I had always assumed that the primary purpose of the claim laws, > and the reason why there is no play after the claim, is to > prevent declarer gaining an example by claiming, for instance > from the reaction of the opponents. > > Robin _PRECISELY_ (The claim laws are there to protect opponents, not the claimer!) Regards Sven From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Jul 6 21:49:36 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu Jul 6 21:51:19 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <004f01c6a121$be3e8980$1d9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209DD@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> <004f01c6a121$be3e8980$1d9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:28:38 +0100, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >The prospect of removing all the tar and feathers >may deter Declarer. Anyway, I bet there are other >existing rules to invoke against that sort of >behaviour. Bridge base Online and other sites, >successfully enforce this simplified claims >protocol. In practice, I haven't met a problem. >Has anybody else? > The fact you seem to have overlooked, Nigel, is that at least on BBO and OKBridge, you can't tell which defender rejected your claim. The scenario that Robin described therefore doesn't arise. Brian. From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 6 22:11:27 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Jul 6 22:13:27 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <000201c6a12f$535d8310$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 14:06 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claim > > On Behalf Of Robin Barker > ............. > > I had always assumed that the primary purpose of the claim laws, > > and the reason why there is no play after the claim, is to > > prevent declarer gaining an example by claiming, for instance > > from the reaction of the opponents. > > > > Robin > > _PRECISELY_ > > (The claim laws are there to protect opponents, not the claimer!) that may well be the reason for the claim laws, but it is a pretty poor reason. A good reason is to arrive at a satisfactory resolution of the hand once a claim is made. regards roger pewick > Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 6 22:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jul 6 22:42:51 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209DD@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: > *From:* "Robin Barker" > *To:* "Guthrie" , "BLML" > *Date:* Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:23:42 +0100 > > -----Original Message----- > For declarer's claims a much better rule has been > suggested several times in BLML. When he judges > that there is no more to the play, declarer is > encouraged to place his cards face up on the > table. He does not need to explain a line of play > although it is courteous so to do. Defenders may > dispute the claim by asking declarer to play on -- > without consulting each other. > > _______________________________________________ > > Dummy has DK10x and declarer shows DAJx, "the rest". > > Good players will make sure the objection comes > randomly from either defender; but against many > players declarer will make the test. The rubber bridge laws are similar to those suggested, with the obvious proviso that declarer isn't allowed to base a line of play on information that may have been gained from his actions. They work perfectly well. Tim From mandache at free.fr Thu Jul 6 23:01:17 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Thu Jul 6 22:51:11 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <63C1195B-5358-486C-AC16-0B12FFB165C1@rochester.rr.com> References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> <1152168508.44acb23c82fa8@imp2-g19.free.fr> <63C1195B-5358-486C-AC16-0B12FFB165C1@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <1152219677.44ad7a1d3935b@imp3-g19.free.fr> Selon Ed Reppert : > > On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Manuela Mandache wrote: > > > Well, I was there, declarer miscounted > > In your opinion. :-) On the evidence presented, I'm not so sure. > > It's a judgement call - and the judgement that counts is the TD's. > No TD has been called. It was the year's tournament of the club, "we're all friends and we play for fun". After the claim, I present my STxxx and declarer says 'oh! oh, then I concede a spade'. I answer 'You should play SAQJ, then S9 for my 10, I cash my two clubs and let you have the last trick in D. Forget it, so you score 3NT+2'. 'No!', says dummy, who has taken a better look to all my and declarer's cards, 'after SAQJ there are four tricks in diamonds, DJ comes.' I left dummy mark the score (declarer was actually W), he started marking 3NT+3, then declarer insisted and he changed it for 3NT+2. He did not speak to me for one month and a few days later I had a motherly speach from declarer on the lines of 'this kind of attitude does you no good'. I hope this kills and buries the thread - RIP. Cheers, Manuela From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 7 00:28:38 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jul 7 00:30:12 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000301c6a14b$874c46e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Brian Meadows ............ > The fact you seem to have overlooked, Nigel, is that at least on > BBO and OKBridge, you can't tell which defender rejected your > claim. The scenario that Robin described therefore doesn't arise. > Brian. The very fact that a claim is contested is a warning signal to the claimer that he may have overlooked something. That warning signal is information which he is not allowed to use, and the best way of assuring that he does not use it is to forbid all further play and to rule the result on the board from what the claimer stated with his claim and ignore any extra information that he might add afterwards. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 7 00:35:40 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jul 7 00:37:14 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c6a14c$82f0e690$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Roger Pewick > > > On Behalf Of Robin Barker > > ............. > > > I had always assumed that the primary purpose of the claim laws, > > > and the reason why there is no play after the claim, is to > > > prevent declarer gaining an example by claiming, for instance > > > from the reaction of the opponents. > > > > > > Robin > > > > _PRECISELY_ > > > > (The claim laws are there to protect opponents, not the claimer!) > > that may well be the reason for the claim laws, but it is a pretty poor > reason. A good reason is to arrive at a satisfactory resolution of the > hand once a claim is made. Satisfactory for whom? If there is complete agreement between the claimer and his opponents then there is no problem. (This does not necessarily mean that the claim is sustained). If there is a disagreement then it is definitely not satisfactory if the claimer is awarded tricks which he possibly can have deduced how to win from the fact that the claim was contested unless it is absolutely impossible that he could have been unaware of that winning line when he made his claim. Sven From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 7 00:47:18 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jul 7 00:48:52 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <1152219677.44ad7a1d3935b@imp3-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <000501c6a14e$23685940$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Manuela Mandache > > On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Manuela Mandache wrote: > > > > > Well, I was there, declarer miscounted > > > > In your opinion. :-) On the evidence presented, I'm not so sure. > > > > It's a judgement call - and the judgement that counts is the TD's. > > > > No TD has been called. It was the year's tournament of the club, > "we're all friends and we play for fun". After the claim, I present > my STxxx and declarer says 'oh! oh, then I concede a spade'. I answer > 'You should play SAQJ, then S9 for my 10, I cash my two clubs and let > you have the last trick in D. Forget it, so you score 3NT+2'. 'No!', > says dummy, who has taken a better look to all my and declarer's cards, > 'after SAQJ there are four tricks in diamonds, DJ comes.' > I left dummy mark the score (declarer was actually W), he started > marking 3NT+3, then declarer insisted and he changed it for3NT+2. > He did not speak to me for one month and a few days later I had a > motherly speach from declarer on the lines of 'this kind of attitude > does you no good'. If I ever should happen that I come to your club for a tournament where "we're all friends and we play for fun" please remind me that it is OK to bypass the laws like this. After all anybody complaining is only destroying the fun. As I have indicated before: 3NT+3 is outrageous, 3NT+2 can be an acceptable compromise depending on the circumstances and 3NT= is the correct result if you shall follow the laws to the letter (and intention). Regards Sven From adam at tameware.com Fri Jul 7 00:58:05 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri Jul 7 01:00:36 2006 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <005901c69fd5$018ce860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <005901c69fd5$018ce860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: At 2:47 AM +0100 7/5/06, Guthrie wrote: >[Adam Wildavsky] >> I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let >> me pose a question. Suppose you were faced >> with a complete rewrite of the laws, with >> all the laws renumbered and reorganized and >> almost every law rewritten. How would you >> determine whether or not it was an improvement >> over the existing laws? > >[nige1] >[A] For players: Is the resultant game more > enjoyable? Do more players understand and > agree with the rules? Is the game still > recognizably Bridge? >[B] For directors: Do more directors understand > the rules? Are the rules easier to enforce? > Do the rules result in more consistent >rulings? >[C] [For everybody] Are the rules more complete, > clearer, simpler, more internally consistent, > less subjective? Are the laws well laid out, > indexed, easy to find? A blast from the past! This thread has been revived after a ten month hiatus. Not that I'm complaining, since I am still interested and I don't think the matter has been resolved. Your proposals [A] and [B] require that the new laws be put into practice. The problem with this is that if we find they are a disimprovement, or even fatally flawed, we may have to wait ten years to fix them. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Fri Jul 7 00:58:15 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri Jul 7 01:00:40 2006 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060705161812.030925f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <005901c69fd5$018ce860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060705112153.0301ce10@pop.starpower.net> <005101c6a053$6c70cf60$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060705161812.030925f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: At 4:23 PM -0400 7/5/06, Eric Landau wrote: >I wonder whether the LC knows that Adam has been so heretical as to >solicit outside opinions on one of the questions before them. I >strongly suspect that if they do, they do not, in general, approve. They do know -- I have few secrets. What they think of the practice I can't tell you, except that no one has objected. -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Fri Jul 7 00:58:48 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri Jul 7 01:00:42 2006 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060705112153.0301ce10@pop.starpower.net> References: <005901c69fd5$018ce860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060705112153.0301ce10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: At 11:30 AM -0400 7/5/06, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:47 PM 7/4/06, Guthrie wrote: > >>[Adam Wildavsky] >>> I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let >>> me pose a question. Suppose you were faced >>> with a complete rewrite of the laws, with >>> all the laws renumbered and reorganized and >>> almost every law rewritten. How would you >>> determine whether or not it was an improvement >>> over the existing laws? > >I would compile a list of interested and knowledgeable (a) >high-level TDs, (b) low-level (club) TDs, and (c) players, who were >not directly involved in the rewrite. (Or, even better, I would >have a previously compiled list already at hand.) I would send >advance copies of the new laws to this panel, and ask them. I'm afraid your proposal doesn't help me. It seems to be begging the question. Suppose we send the prospective new laws to various people -- how are they to evaluate them? -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From brian at meadows.pair.com Fri Jul 7 01:12:12 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri Jul 7 01:13:56 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000301c6a14b$874c46e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000301c6a14b$874c46e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6g5ra2do6t1oqrtrcbhar4vq8agsnqa8k9@meadows.pair.com> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 00:28:38 +0200, Sven wrote: >> On Behalf Of Brian Meadows >............ >> The fact you seem to have overlooked, Nigel, is that at least on >> BBO and OKBridge, you can't tell which defender rejected your >> claim. The scenario that Robin described therefore doesn't arise. >> Brian. > >The very fact that a claim is contested is a warning signal to the claimer >that he may have overlooked something. > Yes, I know. I was addressing Robin's point about A10x opposite KJx, and pointing out to Nigel why it doesn't cause a problem on BBO. >That warning signal is information which he is not allowed to use, and the >best way of assuring that he does not use it is to forbid all further play >and to rule the result on the board from what the claimer stated with his >claim and ignore any extra information that he might add afterwards. > A trifle impractical, at least on BBO. Having just looked, there are currently 3570 players currently logged in to BBO, and there's no Vugraph in progress - and I've seen more than 8,000 online before now. How many TDs do you feel that a *free* bridge service should employ in order to "rule the result on the board..."? That's why the "play it out" rule is in effect. Online bridge is a very different environment from the "offline" game, and there are a lot of incompatibilities. Which is the same point that I was making to Nigel. Brian. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 7 01:53:53 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jul 7 01:56:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Andr? Steffens: >>Declarer's intention to play the singleton is incontrovertible, >>so Law 45D does not come into play Ed Reppert: >Jesus. Kaplan's "decide how you want to rule and then find a law >that allows it" was bad enough. This "stretch the law all out of >shape until it sorta fits how you want to rule" is.... words >fail me. :-( Richard Hills: Merely because dummy holds a singleton does not mean that declarer's incontrovertible intention would be to play that singleton. If declarer is Captain Jack Sparrow, declarer's incontrovertible intention may be to ask dummy to revoke, hoping to steal an otherwise hopeless contract should befuddled opponents fail to notice the revoke. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jul 7 02:10:42 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Jul 7 02:10:38 2006 Subject: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission References: <005901c69fd5$018ce860$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000f01c6a159$c9b3c180$039468d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Wildavsky] > A blast from the past! This thread has been revived > after a ten month hiatus. Not that I'm complaining, > since I am still interested and I don't think the > matter has been resolved. [nige1] Sorry my PC is old, slow and erratic and the software is on its last legs :( comparison with owner unwelcome ): [Adam] > Your proposals [A] and [B] require that the new > laws be put into practice. The problem with this > is that if we find they are a disimprovement, or > even fatally flawed, we may have to wait ten years > to fix them. [nige1] You are being overly pessimistic, Adam. Presented with a draft of the laws, players, directors and administrators can easily use their imaginations... I. To check that the new laws are sensible, would leave the game recognizably Bridge, and would result in a more enjoyable game. II. To judge whether the new laws are easy to understand and apply consistently. Here, it would also be useful to provide objective tests. Additionally, IMO, it is important... III. To establish whether the new laws are more complete, simple, clear, consistent, and objective. IV. To check that the law-book is well laid out with helpful examples, a glossary, and a good index. Here again it is easy to devise objective tests: Ask assessors to judge a range of cases ranging from basic rulings to some of the more controversial historic appeals and check whether their answers are (a) consistent (b) in keeping with the intentions of the new laws. V. IMO it would be a good idea to repeat these tests with "guinea-pigs" who don't play bridge. Unfortunately, this might result in unwelcome work being imposed on the WBFLC. The WBF could, however, exploit a major flaw in their current administration: that different zones enforce quite different local regulations. VI. The local legislators could be asked to try out alternative legal suggestions and assess their impact as objectively as possible. Of course, local law committees might also balk at the prospect of assessment work. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jul 7 02:27:59 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Jul 7 02:27:54 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: Message-ID: <002f01c6a15c$339b0b60$039468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > The rubber bridge laws are similar to those > suggested, with the obvious proviso that > declarer isn't allowed to base a line of play > on information that may have been gained from > his actions. They work perfectly well. [nige1] Thank you Tim. I haven't played rubber bridge for ages, so I am grateful for common sense corroboration from another source. I had hoped that there might be adequate rules against devising new forms of Alcatraz Coup. From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 7 11:02:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jul 7 11:04:09 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000501c6a14e$23685940$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > As I have indicated before: 3NT+3 is outrageous, 3NT+2 can be an > acceptable compromise depending on the circumstances and 3NT= is the > correct result if you shall follow the laws to the letter (and > intention). Which is bunkum - the "correct" ruling depends on the TD establishing the facts to his satisfaction. For example did declarer say "Les piques viennent? J'ai DQ." or "Les piques viennent. J'ai DQ".* In the former case the lucky diamond position would result in 13 tricks without any doubt (declarer has indicated that he is aware of a possible non-break and a D discard would be irrational in that situation). If it was the latter the TD investigation may lead him to determine that declarer would not notice the non-appearance of the ST (and thus award 9 tricks). If not he might assume that declarer will carelessly discard a D on the 2nd/3rd spade and award 12 tricks or he might be in no doubt that West showing out on the S8 would alert declarer to the split and that a D discard would still be irrational. Any one of those rulings would be reasonable depending on the facts/level of doubt. *Apologies to French speakers if I have butchered my translation somehow but I believe tonal interrogatives are fairly common over there. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 7 11:33:27 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Jul 7 11:26:14 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <527D5428-6E82-46D9-B610-8717C6DD55CE@rochester.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060706103321.02088070@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060706103321.02088070@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060707113117.02093090@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:01 6/07/2006 -0400, you wrote: >On Jul 6, 2006, at 4:42 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>One doesn't claim just because one merely thinks cards are dealt in >>a certain way. > >That ain't necessarily so, Alain. OK, so I'll correct. One should only claim when all problems are solved, not because one has inferential count or the like. If one claims before problems are solved, mainly because of wrong assumptions, this is wrong procedure, and the case shall be decided against the claimer barring very strong evidence that one was knowing what one did. From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 7 12:13:03 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jul 7 12:14:41 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6a1ad$efd3d810$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > As I have indicated before: 3NT+3 is outrageous, 3NT+2 can be an > > acceptable compromise depending on the circumstances and 3NT= is the > > correct result if you shall follow the laws to the letter (and > > intention). > > Which is bunkum - the "correct" ruling depends on the TD establishing > the facts to his satisfaction. > > For example did declarer say "Les piques viennent? J'ai DQ." or "Les > piques viennent. J'ai DQ".* In the former case the lucky diamond > position would result in 13 tricks without any doubt (declarer has > indicated that he is aware of a possible non-break and a D discard would > be irrational in that situation). > > If it was the latter the TD investigation may lead him to determine that > declarer would not notice the non-appearance of the ST (and thus award 9 > tricks). If not he might assume that declarer will carelessly discard a > D on the 2nd/3rd spade and award 12 tricks or he might be in no doubt > that West showing out on the S8 would alert declarer to the split and > that a D discard would still be irrational. > > Any one of those rulings would be reasonable depending on the > facts/level of doubt. > > *Apologies to French speakers if I have butchered my translation somehow > but I believe tonal interrogatives are fairly common over there. > > Tim Tim's comment is apparently based mainly upon the uncertainty whether the claimer said or asked that the spades would run through. Let me remind that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. (Law 70A) And IMO a claim with a question is OK if the question is something like: "If the spades run I have the rest, if not I concede one trick." Or: "If the spades run I have the rest, if not then I play Diamonds from top for three or four tricks." But any question like: "Do the spades run? If not then I have to think again" is entirely improper. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 7 12:28:47 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Jul 7 12:21:30 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: <000501c6a14e$23685940$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060707122407.02093620@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:02 7/07/2006 +0100, tim wrote: >*Apologies to French speakers if I have butchered my translation somehow >but I believe tonal interrogatives are fairly common over there. You have it right, but we'd consider this as a question, hence a conditional claim, as in "Les coeurs sont bons. L'impasse pique mArche ?" (hearts do run. WhAt about the spade f Inesse?) meaning e.g. 10 or 11 tricks according to the lie of the spade honour. Here, a rising inflection would mean "12 tricks unless the spades aren't running". They aren't. Regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Fri Jul 7 13:37:24 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri Jul 7 13:39:01 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <006301c6a1b2$c4924a10$0201a8c0@laptop> Message-ID: <000301c6a1b9$b8789610$6400a8c0@WINXP> -----Original Message----- From: ciska zuur [mailto:ciska.zuur@planet.nl] Sent: 7. juli 2006 12:48 To: Sven Pran; blml Subject: Re: [blml] claim But any question like: "Do the spades run? If not then I have to think again" is entirely improper. Sven Ciska Zuur: ? Sorry, I disagree, You forget totally 70E: ? The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success ..... unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal?line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. Sven: No I do not forget any part of Law 70 What I said was essentially that a claimer may not "reserve his right" to find another line of play in case his claim statement does not work, he has no such right. This does of course not exclude his possibility to adopt his line of play along the _only_ possible non-irrational line of play as the play would have progressed had it been allowed to continue. Regards Sven PS. And I think you should avoid using "html" or "rich text" formats for your contributions to blml. Please stick to "plain text". From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Fri Jul 7 14:12:37 2006 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (ciska zuur) Date: Fri Jul 7 14:14:27 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <000301c6a1b9$b8789610$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <007401c6a1be$a2e1c100$0201a8c0@laptop> >>But any question like: "Do the spades run? If not then I have to think again" is entirely improper. Sven<< That's right, you can think that (most will not :-)), but you cannot ask and indeed try to keep your rights. >>PS. And I think you should avoid using "html" or "rich text" formats for your contributions to blml. Please stick to "plain text".<< Okay, I will, (the 'plain text' is not so pleasant for the eyes). Ciska ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'ciska zuur'" ; "'blml'" Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:37 PM Subject: RE: [blml] claim -----Original Message----- From: ciska zuur [mailto:ciska.zuur@planet.nl] Sent: 7. juli 2006 12:48 To: Sven Pran; blml Subject: Re: [blml] claim But any question like: "Do the spades run? If not then I have to think again" is entirely improper. Sven Ciska Zuur: Sorry, I disagree, You forget totally 70E: The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success ..... unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. Sven: No I do not forget any part of Law 70 What I said was essentially that a claimer may not "reserve his right" to find another line of play in case his claim statement does not work, he has no such right. This does of course not exclude his possibility to adopt his line of play along the _only_ possible non-irrational line of play as the play would have progressed had it been allowed to continue. Regards Sven PS. And I think you should avoid using "html" or "rich text" formats for your contributions to blml. Please stick to "plain text". From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 7 14:30:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jul 7 14:32:08 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000001c6a1ad$efd3d810$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > > Tim's comment is apparently based mainly upon the uncertainty whether > the claimer said or asked that the spades would run through. > > Let me remind that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the > claimer. (Law 70A) Exactly what claimer said is a "doubtful point" when reported on this list. It may, or may not, be a doubtful point after the TD investigates at the table. Please note that Manuela originally quoted the statement as "Four tricks in spades and I have the DQ." There's no malice in that translation and it may indeed represent an accurate portrayal of what declarer intended to say but subsequent accounts make it clear that this is something a TD should have investigated (had one been called). It's just one example of the uncertainties I have about this case from reading a [single point of view] written report. At the table I'd investigate those uncertainties - after so doing I may decide there are many doubtful points and rule 9 tricks, or no doubtful points and award 13. TDs should not be abdicating responsibility by simply ruling such points as doubtful without bothering to investigate. > But any question like: "Do the spades run? If not then I have to think > again" is entirely improper. It may be improper, and if you consider it so you may impose a penalty for the impropriety. Nevertheless such "improper" claims happen and may even be normal within the style of a given club. What a TD may not do is adjudicate against an improper claim if he has no doubt as to the number of tricks which would have resulted. IME "improper" claims of the above type speed up the game and work well *much* more often than they cause problems so I'm disinclined to penalise them. Also IME there are a small minority of bridge lawyers who will quibble the slightest grammatical error in a claim statement in the hope that the TD will award them a trick they didn't believe for a moment they were going to win. Such players damage the game as whole and I'm damned if I'm going to reward them by ruling in their favour - hence the need to investigate all aspects of these cases properly. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Fri Jul 7 14:30:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Fri Jul 7 14:32:12 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060707122407.02093620@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > Here, a rising inflection would mean "12 tricks unless the spades > aren't running". > > They aren't. Indeed, and so in that case I might award 12 tricks (certainly not 9). But the rising inflection might also mean "I can't be arsed to think about this hand and any squeeze possibilities if the spades are running". It might mean "If spades aren't running but the DJ drops unexpectedly you are the type of opps I expect to concede 13". One might dislike this style of making a claim while being in no doubt that declarer would have made 13 tricks. All I'm asking is that the reasonableness of 9,12 and 13 tricks is acknowledged - given that we haven't a hope in hell of establishing the "facts" of a 12 month old case. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 7 16:23:58 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 7 16:25:39 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707101246.02b13010@pop.starpower.net> At 12:28 AM 7/6/06, Ed wrote: >On Jul 3, 2006, at 12:01 PM, John Probst wrote: > >>For me it depends on the wording he used. If he specifically claims >>the >>"spades are running" I'll stick him with it. If he just says 5 >>spades, 3D, >>3H and a club I'll let him spot the error. As I said elsewhere I'm >>trying to >>get into his head. > >Maybe you should ask him why he said what he did. If he in fact >miscounted, that's one thing, but if he simply assumed a distribution >that turned out not to exist, that's another thing entirely. But do we care about the difference? If partner were to play out the hand and misplay it, would we care whether he misplayed it because he miscounted a suit or because he assumed a favorable break without having a sufficient count on the suit? Would we even detect any difference? Either way, he will have based his line of play on the assumption that the suit would run when it wouldn't. Do we really care whether he was thinking "five out, both followed once, nobody has more than four" or "six out, both followed once, nobody has more than four" when it should be "six out, both followed once, somebody might still have five"? Are those different enough mental errors to affect how we would rule? I don't see it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 7 17:01:11 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 7 17:02:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707103731.02a45890@pop.starpower.net> At 07:59 AM 7/6/06, Roger wrote: >Once again John's keen insight is profound. I suggest examining the >effect: > >Now For the sake of demonstration consider dummy's hand where a spade >is the >OL and the SA is singleton in dummy. Dummy uninstructed plops it in a >played position. At T3 it is pointed out that no card from dummy was >+played+ to T1. Since the SA has not been played it +must+ be returned to >dummy's hand whereby T1 is defective and thus was won by one of the three >cards +played+ to it. Per L67 T1 must be corrected and one of dummy's >cards >added to T1- ostensibly the ace. And that correction does not affect >ownership of T1. Nonsense. We actually have a thread here which seems to be coming to a common-sense consensus: The SA was played *when declarer noticed that dummy had placed it as though it had been played and failed to object* (this point *must* have been reached when he turned trick one without saying anything). An appropriate legal justification is that failing to object to dummy's action, once noticed, constitutes "otherwise designat[ing] it as the card he proposed to play" per L45C5(a). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 7 17:15:53 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 7 17:17:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <004c01c6a0fd$b5befac0$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <94504F49BF58B0499D108530E98A520501C7AAFB@rama.Micronas.com> <168547A3-4260-45CF-B37B-3654F9AA500D@rochester.rr.com> <004c01c6a0fd$b5befac0$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707110207.02a27eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:01 AM 7/6/06, Guthrie wrote: >[Ed Reppert] > > A better ruling, IMO, would be to rule the > > revoke not established, but give the > > declaring side a PP for dummy's failure to > > observe laws 42A3, 43A1(c), and 45B. > >[nige1] >Ed injects some common sense to put this >pathetic debate out of its misery :) Ed simply recognizes the obvious: Playing a singleton, or one of only touching cards, from the dummy before declarer calls is the habit of an individual, not a partnership. One either does it by habit or doesn't; you don't "agree" to do it with some partners but not others. It is a failure by the individual player to follow correct procedure, and should be treated as such. In my experience, though, it's such a common practice and so generally innocuous that it would warrant a penalty only in very unusual circumstances (e.g. if an opponent asked him explicitly to stop doing it but he continued to anyhow). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 7 17:11:19 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Jul 7 17:21:12 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr><5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be><003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707101246.02b13010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004701c6a1d7$b8819b20$a2cd87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [blml] claim > At 12:28 AM 7/6/06, Ed wrote: > > >On Jul 3, 2006, at 12:01 PM, John Probst wrote: > > etc. etc. +=+ One of the longest statements of claim ever? +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 7 17:31:19 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 7 17:32:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC Appeal N-03] In-Reply-To: <009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> <3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com> <009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707112424.02a25e20@pop.starpower.net> At 10:11 AM 7/6/06, Guthrie wrote: >[nige1] >By "rules" I mean all the rules of Bridge... >[A] TFLB, relevant minutes, commentaries, appeals >and so on that have the force of law. >[B] Zonal regulations -- like the EBU Orange Book; >and (I guess) some parts of the EBU White book and >TD instructions. >[C] Local conditions of contest. >[D] Any other "Bridge rule" I've missed. > >TFLB by the WBFLC should include all necessary >rules. WBF may be powerless to prevent other >organisations producing their own variants -- but >local organisations should not be forced to do >so -- as they currently are. > >Almost all rules are of practical concern to the >player. For example, under current law, a player >may decide not to draw attention to an infraction >because he judges that the likely ruling by a >director will not be as favourable as the result >he can expect without the director's intervention. Gee, Nigel, we've had tournaments where the most prominently displayed "local condition of contest" (or is it an "other 'bridge rule'"?) on the material distributed to the players said, "Anyone bringing any food or beverage that it is not certified Kosher into the playing area will be immediately ejected." Should TFLB really concern itself with *all* the rules *everywhere*? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 7 17:39:09 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jul 7 17:40:49 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060707113117.02093090@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060706103321.02088070@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060706103321.02088070@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060707113117.02093090@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jul 7, 2006, at 5:33 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > If one claims before problems are solved, mainly because of wrong > assumptions, this is wrong procedure "Wrong procedure" means to me that it violates the laws. How so? From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 7 17:47:05 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jul 7 17:48:44 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707101246.02b13010@pop.starpower.net> References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707101246.02b13010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jul 7, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Are those different enough mental errors to affect how we would > rule? I don't see it. If he miscounted, then when one opponent shows out, he has still miscounted and will probably still get it wrong. If he has assumed a distribution that doesn't exist, then when one opponent shows out he will, unless he is completely asleep, realize his assumption was incorrect. He will now realize that continuing the original line of play is irrational. Must we hold him to it regardless of that fact? From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jul 7 17:56:32 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri Jul 7 17:57:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl><000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707103731.02a45890@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established? > At 07:59 AM 7/6/06, Roger wrote: > > >Once again John's keen insight is profound. I suggest examining the > >effect: > > > >Now For the sake of demonstration consider dummy's hand where a spade > >is the > >OL and the SA is singleton in dummy. Dummy uninstructed plops it in a > >played position. At T3 it is pointed out that no card from dummy was > >+played+ to T1. Since the SA has not been played it +must+ be returned to > >dummy's hand whereby T1 is defective and thus was won by one of the three > >cards +played+ to it. Per L67 T1 must be corrected and one of dummy's > >cards > >added to T1- ostensibly the ace. And that correction does not affect > >ownership of T1. > > Nonsense. We actually have a thread here which seems to be coming to a > common-sense consensus: The SA was played *when declarer noticed that > dummy had placed it as though it had been played and failed to object* > (this point *must* have been reached when he turned trick one without > saying anything). An appropriate legal justification is that failing > to object to dummy's action, once noticed, constitutes "otherwise > designat[ing] it as the card he proposed to play" per L45C5(a). > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 The assertion was that when dummy puts a card in a played position given that declarer gave no instruction to do so, it has not been played. The assertion was tested for its effect. Nothing else. Now. If the card had not been played at the point in time that dummy put it in a played position, then it remains so until declarer so designates according to law. What is nonsense is your asserting that declarer playing a card and then turning it over fulfills the requirement of law that dummy's non-played card is now played. A large number have this belief that because only declarer is legally allowed to designate a card to be played from dummy that if the designation by declarer isn't made then the card is not a played card to the trick under any circumstances. I have demonstrated a consequence of that belief. And Probst asserts that it is something that he can live with. regards roger pewick From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 7 18:10:53 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 7 18:12:24 2006 Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] Revoke established? Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707120840.03026260@pop.starpower.net> At 02:41 PM 7/4/06, Andre wrote: >We discussed a similar case on the dutch forum a few days ago. How about >stating that Law 46 B applies here: >Incomplete or Erroneous Call >In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be >played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when >declarer's >different intention is incontrovertible): > >Declarer's intention to play the singleton is incontrovertible, so Law 45D >does not come into play But that's only "in case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer". Here declarer has made no call whatsoever, incomplete, erroneous or otherwise, so it cannot apply. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 7 18:23:21 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 7 18:24:51 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <004f01c6a121$be3e8980$1d9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209DD@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> <004f01c6a121$be3e8980$1d9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707121530.030251b0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:28 PM 7/6/06, Guthrie wrote: >[Robin Barker] > > Dummy has DK10x and declarer shows DAJx, "the > > rest". Good players will make sure the > > objection comes randomly from either defender; > > but against many players declarer will make > > the test. > >[nige1] >The prospect of removing all the tar and feathers >may deter Declarer. Anyway, I bet there are other >existing rules to invoke against that sort of >behaviour. Bridge base Online and other sites, >successfully enforce this simplified claims >protocol. In practice, I haven't met a problem. >Has anybody else? I can see how this procedure might be workable in an on-line bridge environment, where declarer cannot receive any feedback from the spontaneous reactions of his opponents. But at a real live table, anyone with enough table feel to consistently win at poker will, after unexpectedly exposing his AJx opposite dummy's K10x, have a pretty good idea who has the queen even if his opponents sit there without actually saying anything. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Fri Jul 7 17:57:15 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jul 7 18:52:01 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:47:05 EDT." Message-ID: <200607071545.IAA25409@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Jul 7, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > Are those different enough mental errors to affect how we would > > rule? I don't see it. > > If he miscounted, then when one opponent shows out, he has still > miscounted and will probably still get it wrong. I'm not so certain of this. If he's miscounted and believes the suit will run, but then finds out after cashing the fourth round of the suit that the 10 didn't drop, there's a good chance that will be enough to wake him up. Not a 100% chance, but a good chance. Not noticing the failure of this card to drop is yet a third kind of possible mental error (it's not one that declarer has made yet, but we probably have to decide whether he *would* make it if the hand were played out); whether this is different enough from the other two errors that Eric mentions, or whether we should care, are legitimate areas of discussion. -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jul 7 19:45:08 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Jul 7 19:45:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABC Appeal N-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707112424.02a25e20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003001c6a1ed$19eb2600$329868d5@jeushtlj> [Eric Landau] > Gee, Nigel, we've had tournaments where the > most prominently displayed "local condition of > contest" (or is it an "other 'bridge rule'"?) > on the material distributed to the players > said, "Anyone bringing any food or beverage > that it is not certified Kosher into the > playing area will be immediately ejected." > Should TFLB really concern itself with *all* > the rules *everywhere*? [nige1] OK Eric. You got me :( And I accept that there are other specific conditions of contest that would be inappropriate for inclusion in TFLB ): From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 7 22:05:20 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 7 22:07:00 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <200607061731.KAA14642@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200607061731.KAA14642@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707160046.030d4320@pop.starpower.net> At 01:42 PM 7/6/06, Adam wrote: >I think Robin's downside, all by itself, outweighs the downsides of >existing claim law. The inconsistencies and ambiguities in the claim >laws provide fodder for lots of arguments on BLML (which may or may >not be a downside---it's actually an upside for those BLMLers for whom >this sort of argument is a fun hobby). But from what I've seen, claim >problems aren't a significant fraction of the "real" problems that >tournament players encounter. I believe the vast majority of cases >that get appealed have to do with UI and MI (all of the small number >of appeals that I've been involved in have dealt with one of those >two). The "bad claim" cases that I've been involved with at the table >have all been dealt with pretty quickly and easily. So while those >who tend to see things abstractly may see claim laws as a big problem, >because we have such long and fantastic arguments about how to apply >them, I don't see them as broken enough to warrant an overhaul that >could open the door to a real problem such as the one Robin described. Adam gets a big "me too" from this corner. I've been involved in appeals from both sides for 40 years. Despite the fun we have with the claims laws on BLML, I've seen very few contested claims cases, and those have been pretty easy and straightforward. With my TD hat on, I've seen a fair number of bad claims, but my rulings have, again, been pretty easy and straightforward, and rarely appealed. Surely if we're going to take the trouble to completely overhaul some aspect of the laws, it is the laws on UI and MI that give us the most trouble and could most benefit from it if it were done right. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 7 22:24:34 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 7 22:26:10 2006 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] July 2005 minutes of the ACBL Laws Commission Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707162348.030c6b80@pop.starpower.net> At 06:58 PM 7/6/06, Adam wrote: >At 11:30 AM -0400 7/5/06, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>[Adam Wildavsky] >>>> I'm sorry you find the news unpleasant. Let >>>> me pose a question. Suppose you were faced >>>> with a complete rewrite of the laws, with >>>> all the laws renumbered and reorganized and >>>> almost every law rewritten. How would you >>>> determine whether or not it was an improvement >>>> over the existing laws? >> >>I would compile a list of interested and knowledgeable (a) high-level >>TDs, (b) low-level (club) TDs, and (c) players, who were not directly >>involved in the rewrite. (Or, even better, I would have a previously >>compiled list already at hand.) I would send advance copies of the >>new laws to this panel, and ask them. > >I'm afraid your proposal doesn't help me. It seems to be begging the >question. Suppose we send the prospective new laws to various people >-- how are they to evaluate them? By whatever criteria they choose, of course. I expect most would react from their gut, without consciously formulating any specific evaluation criteria. That's what you want. If you decide on their behalf what the criteria should be in order to consider the new laws "an improvement", you will have pre-determined the answer, and obviated the point of asking. If there was a single objective set of criteria, the evaluation would be a trivial exercise, and the LC wouldn't need any help. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 7 22:54:55 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 7 22:56:35 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707101246.02b13010@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707165045.030ca0a0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:47 AM 7/7/06, Ed wrote: >On Jul 7, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>Are those different enough mental errors to affect how we would >>rule? I don't see it. > >If he miscounted, then when one opponent shows out, he has still >miscounted and will probably still get it wrong. If he has assumed a >distribution that doesn't exist, then when one opponent shows out he >will, unless he is completely asleep, realize his assumption was >incorrect. He will now realize that continuing the original line of >play is irrational. Must we hold him to it regardless of that fact? I see where Ed is going, but I still don't see how he gets there. If declarer "miscounts", doesn't that mean that he, perforce, "assumes a distribution that doesn't exist"? If he "assumes a distribution that doesn't exist", must he not have either "miscounted" or not counted at all? Whatever you call it, his claim depends on his having the correct count, and he doesn't. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 7 23:31:12 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jul 7 23:32:50 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707165045.030ca0a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707101246.02b13010@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707165045.030ca0a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6BCA3B02-4B77-4417-9677-DEC79051789F@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 7, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > I see where Ed is going, but I still don't see how he gets there. > If declarer "miscounts", doesn't that mean that he, perforce, > "assumes a distribution that doesn't exist"? If he "assumes a > distribution that doesn't exist", must he not have either > "miscounted" or not counted at all? Whatever you call it, his > claim depends on his having the correct count, and he doesn't. If I know there are 6 cards out, then I know they break either 6-0, 5-1, 4-2, or 3-3. If I then play one round, see that both defenders follow, and then *assume* the suit must break 4-2 or 3-3, I haven't miscounted the suit, I've made a wrong assumption about the distributions eliminated when both opponents follow to one trick. If I think there are 5 cards out (because I've miscounted), then they break either 5-0, 4-1, or 3-2. If both follow to a trick, then I will think the only possible distributions are 4-1 or 3-2, which means my fifth card will be good, just as it would be in the first case if they didn't break 5-1. But the reasoning is different, and so is the reason for the error. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jul 8 01:52:38 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sat Jul 8 01:54:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC AppealN-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com> <009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <02c701c6a220$6ee34880$6400a8c0@rota> Guthrie writes: > Almost all rules are of practical concern to the > player. For example, under current law, a player > may decide not to draw attention to an infraction > because he judges that the likely ruling by a > director will not be as favourable as the result > he can expect without the director's intervention. This is unlikely, since the player can always waive the penalty or accept an illegal play. A player needs to know that he should call the TD when there is an insufficient bid; after he calls the TD and is told, "If you don't accept the insufficient 3S bid, he can make any bid or pass which is legal, but if he does anything other than 4S, his partner is barred from the rest of the auction," the player who called the TD can still elect to accept the insufficient bid and double it. For most of the laws, the player need only know, "If someone violates the law, call the TD, who will inform you of your rights." Players need to know the laws in which normal actions can affect their rights. For example, players need to know the standards for making and contesting claims, and for avoiding taking an action which could have been suggested by unauthorized information. They don't need to know the penalty for a bid out of turn, since the TD must be called as soon as one happens. If there were a players' guide to the Laws, players might pay more attention to the ones that they really need to know. It is common for players, even good players, to object to UI rulings with a comment like, "I would have made that bid anyway," when it is clear that there was a logical alternative that was not suggested by the UI. From adam at irvine.com Sat Jul 8 02:06:46 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Sat Jul 8 02:08:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC AppealN-03] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:52:38 EDT." <02c701c6a220$6ee34880$6400a8c0@rota> Message-ID: <200607072355.QAA29575@mailhub.irvine.com> David Grabiner wrote: > Guthrie writes: > > > Almost all rules are of practical concern to the > > player. For example, under current law, a player > > may decide not to draw attention to an infraction > > because he judges that the likely ruling by a > > director will not be as favourable as the result > > he can expect without the director's intervention. > > This is unlikely, since the player can always waive the penalty or accept an > illegal play. A player needs to know that he should call the TD when there > is an insufficient bid; after he calls the TD and is told, "If you don't > accept the insufficient 3S bid, he can make any bid or pass which is legal, > but if he does anything other than 4S, his partner is barred from the rest > of the auction," the player who called the TD can still elect to accept the > insufficient bid and double it. Yes, I think the Laws' drafters have been careful to ensure that calling the Director for the opponents' infraction cannot possibly leave the non-offenders in a worse position. This may not have been the case with previous versions of the Laws---I don't know for sure. Some years ago, at a sectional, when my RHO made an insufficient bid, I called the TD. The TD, who I'd guess had been directing for quite a long time but had not reached a high level, then explained my options. He started with, "You have the right to accept the insufficient bid"---and then he added, "which I assume you don't plan to do since you called me". He was later quite surprised when, after having all my options explained, I did accept the insufficient bid. But I wonder: apparently back in the "old days", it was perhaps more common for players to simply ignore an irregularity if they wanted to accept it, while now I think players are encouraged to call the TD any time there is an infraction. So maybe in the old days, it *was* possible that a TD call would remove your ability to accept an infraction and benefit from it, pre-1987. -- Adam From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jul 7 09:05:55 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sat Jul 8 02:20:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> <002401c6a10e$d8e15d20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000401c6a224$91b098f0$fdca403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] > > Tennis has two versions of the rules, a small > booklet for players and a huge one for umpires. > Bridge should have the same, one for players > and one for TDs. If players want to know the > Laws in detail, as you suggest some might, > they could buy the TD version. > +=+ In general NBOs' regulations and the tournament Conditions of Contest normally tell players all they need to know. The view I espouse is that the law book should provide a default situation in the law where it extends the power to regulate. I am told that even some major NBOs produce regulations that are deficient. I have evidence also that some TDs are working in the outback of Ruritania and need the law book to help them. It is hoped to have some example applications of law at the back of the 2007 Code. The primary use of the law book is as a working tool for directors. Consideration is also given to the problems of translation into Swahili, but not at the expense of intention and accuracy. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 8 03:01:43 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Jul 8 03:01:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] References: <200607072355.QAA29575@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <006501c6a22a$14e95540$329868d5@jeushtlj> [David Grabiner] >> This is unlikely, since the player can always >> waive the penalty or accept an illegal play. >> A player needs to know that he should call >> the TD when there is an insufficient bid; >> after he calls the TD and is told, "If you >> don't accept the insufficient 3S bid, he can >> make any bid or pass which is legal, but if >> he does anything other than 4S, his partner >> is barred from the rest of the auction," >> the player who called the TD can still elect >> to accept the insufficient bid and double it. [Adam Beneschan] > Yes, I think the Laws' drafters have been > careful to ensure that calling the Director > for the opponents' infraction cannot possibly > leave the non-offenders in a worse position. > This may not have been the case with previous > versions of the Laws---I don't know for sure. > Some years ago, at a sectional, when my RHO > made an insufficient bid, I called the TD. > The TD, who I'd guess had been directing for > quite a long time but had not reached a high > level, then explained my options. He started > with, "You have the right to accept the > insufficient bid"---and then he added, "which > I assume you don't plan to do since you called > me". He was later quite surprised when, after > having all my options explained, I did accept > the insufficient bid. But I wonder: > apparently back in the "old days", it was > perhaps more common for players to simply > ignore an irregularity if they wanted to > accept it, while now I think players are > encouraged to call the TD any time there is an > infraction. So maybe in the old days, it > *was* possible that a TD call would remove > your ability to accept an infraction and > benefit from it, pre-1987. [nige1] Quibble: I still maintain that there are contexts where it pays the victim not to draw attention to an infraction. Quibble: a player can't waive the director's ruling; although the director will often comply with a victim's request to do so. (: isn't it annoying when somebody ignores the main point of your post with some petty quibble :) Anyway I agree such cases are rare and of little importance. For the sake of argument, I'm happy to concede that it would be icing on the cake to have an idiot's guide for us players; but that should not delay the production of a new version of TFLB that is well-structured, simple, complete, clear, consistent, and as objective as possible. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jul 8 05:20:40 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Jul 8 05:23:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC AppealN-03] [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200607072355.QAA29575@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Adam Beneschan: [snip] >The TD, who I'd guess had been directing for >quite a long time but had not reached a high >level, then explained my options. He started >with, "You have the right to accept the >insufficient bid"---and then he added, "which >I assume you don't plan to do since you >called me". [snip] >So maybe in the old days, it *was* possible >that a TD call would remove your ability to >accept an infraction and benefit from it, >pre-1987. Richard Hills: In the old days pre-1987, if you were declarer and an opponent made an opening lead out of turn, then your right to choose to become dummy expired if you called the director before so choosing. Nowadays Laws 9B1(c) and 9B1(d) mean that the rights of a side are not reduced by any prior summoning of the director. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From Peter.Newman at au.fujitsu.com Thu Jul 6 23:15:56 2006 From: Peter.Newman at au.fujitsu.com (Newman, Peter (Riverside)) Date: Sat Jul 8 09:24:51 2006 Subject: [blml] claim Message-ID: <132109DD2E681C47B2B2FF6FDC56693401D64F61@FALEX02.au.fjanz.com> Nigel wrote: > I accept Robin's argument, however: the potential for abuse by an > unethical declarer is a downside. > Are there other downsides? Probably! Do all possible downsides > outweigh the downsides (complexity, inconsistency) of existing claim > law? > You know my view. What do others think? I think Robin's downside, all by itself, outweighs the downsides of existing claim law. -- Adam _______________________________________________ I had always assumed that the primary purpose of the claim laws, and the reason why there is no play after the claim, is to prevent declarer gaining an example by claiming, for instance from the reaction of the opponents. Robin As one of the proponents of being able to face your cards I have two comments: (1) As declarer I see a new 'open' mode of play - it is not a claim. Quite often at some point in a hand I am pretty certain I can make it and defender is in the tank. I can't word a claim statement clearly enough to cover every eventuality so sit there. I would like to be able to say 'playing open' and place my cards on the table. The defenders can then choose to (with absolutely no requirement to do so) concede. (2) After a claim some defenders want the right to have play continue (particularly LOLs). By law I claim when I should - this is often well before the defenders understand the claim. If the defenders *want* me to play it out should it be allowed? I can see that that this isn't so clear. I have illegally stopped claiming against pairs I judge are like this until I can point to either my hand or dummy being high. Maybe that is the best solution in this case? The 'object to a claim featur'e in online bridge seems to work pretty well in practise the few times I played. Obviously this has the potential of being bent but perhaps harder to judge the reason for rejection online? It still needs to be considered further I would think. Cheers, Peter PS: Sorry if this breaks threading - I only get digest mode and don't get the individual mail headers.... This is an email from Fujitsu Australia Limited, ABN 19 001 011 427. It is confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed and may contain copyright and/or legally privileged information. No one else may read, print, store, copy or forward all or any of it or its attachments. If you receive this email in error, please return to sender. Thank you. If you do not wish to receive commercial email messages from Fujitsu Australia Limited, please email unsubscribe@au.fujitsu.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060706/dd1a99e6/attachment-0001.htm From zecurado at gmail.com Fri Jul 7 06:38:51 2006 From: zecurado at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_J=FAlio_Curado?=) Date: Sat Jul 8 09:24:53 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABC AppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <002401c6a10e$d8e15d20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com> <001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com> <002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj> <00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj> <3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com> <009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj> <002401c6a10e$d8e15d20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: HI! Interesting note, Marvin! In some way that's what we are doing in some "wannabe" TD's courses. As you may know from personal experience, every now and then there is a group of people that decide they want to know the laws better. Unfortunately, the easy way to do it is to take a Club TD course... Most of these people have no interest whatsoever to become a TD, they just want to UNDERSTAND the laws that rule our game. There is a simple "compromise" solution to that: We run a Club TD course composed of two parts. First we spend almost a day reading and commentating on the laws. Then, for those really interested, we go deeper. Those are the only ones being tested, but because there are more people taking part on the program we can get lower rates for everybody (yes, even Cub TD courses are paid here), and spot and encourage some people that have "it" in themselves. I guess Marvin's idea is not that different, except for the "spotting" good potencial TD's part (I think it takes one to know one, but...). Basicly there is one thing most of us must agree on: A huge majority of the players break some law(s), just because they don't know any better... Marvin's idea might just help those ones, and save us all a lot of trouble :-) Let's do it! Jose Curado On 7/6/06, Marvin French wrote: > > > From: "Guthrie" > > > > TFLB by the WBFLC should include all necessary > > rules. WBF may be powerless to prevent other > > organisations producing their own variants -- but > > local organisations should not be forced to do > > so -- as they currently are. > > > > Almost all rules are of practical concern to the > > player. For example, under current law, a player > > may decide not to draw attention to an infraction > > because he judges that the likely ruling by a > > director will not be as favourable as the result > > he can expect without the director's intervention. > > Tennis has two versions of the rules, a small booklet for players > and a huge one for umpires. Bridge should have the same, one for > players and one for TDs. If players want to know the Laws in detail, > as you suggest some might, they could buy the TD version. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > www.marvinfrench.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060707/e885c9e9/attachment-0001.htm From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Fri Jul 7 12:47:39 2006 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (ciska zuur) Date: Sat Jul 8 09:24:57 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <000001c6a1ad$efd3d810$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <006301c6a1b2$c4924a10$0201a8c0@laptop> But any question like: "Do the spades run? If not then I have to think again" is entirely improper. Sven Ciska Zuur: Sorry, I disagree, You forget totally 70E: The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success ..... unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060707/b4dc9699/attachment-0001.htm From herman at hdw.be Fri Jul 7 20:47:34 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Sat Jul 8 09:25:05 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000001c6a1ad$efd3d810$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6a1ad$efd3d810$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Array Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 01:36 PM Subject: [blml] claim > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Sven wrote: > > > As I have indicated before: 3NT+3 is outrageous, 3NT+2 can be an > > acceptable compromise depending on the circumstances and 3NT= is the > > correct result if you shall follow the laws to the letter (and > > intention). > > Which is bunkum - the "correct" ruling depends on the TD establishing > the facts to his satisfaction. > > For example did declarer say "Les piques viennent? J'ai DQ." or "Les > piques viennent. J'ai DQ".* In the former case the lucky diamond > position would result in 13 tricks without any doubt (declarer has > indicated that he is aware of a possible non-break and a D discard would > be irrational in that situation). > > If it was the latter the TD investigation may lead him to determine that > declarer would not notice the non-appearance of the ST (and thus award 9 > tricks). If not he might assume that declarer will carelessly discard a > D on the 2nd/3rd spade and award 12 tricks or he might be in no doubt > that West showing out on the S8 would alert declarer to the split and > that a D discard would still be irrational. > > Any one of those rulings would be reasonable depending on the > facts/level of doubt. > > *Apologies to French speakers if I have butchered my translation somehow > but I believe tonal interrogatives are fairly common over there. > > Tim Tim's comment is apparently based mainly upon the uncertainty whether the claimer said or asked that the spades would run through. Let me remind that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. (Law 70A) And IMO a claim with a question is OK if the question is something like: "If the spades run I have the rest, if not I concede one trick." Or: "If the spades run I have the rest, if not then I play Diamonds from top for three or four tricks." But any question like: "Do the spades run? If not then I have to think again" is entirely improper. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From herman at hdw.be Fri Jul 7 20:52:42 2006 From: herman at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Sat Jul 8 09:25:08 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000001c6a1ad$efd3d810$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000001c6a1ad$efd3d810$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Array No Sven, again you have failed to distinguish between blml and the real world. Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- > > Tim Tim's comment is apparently based mainly upon the uncertainty whether the claimer said or asked that the spades would run through. Let me remind that any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. (Law 70A) But there are no doubtful points !!!!!! The doubtful point here is on blml, where we cannot be certain what the player said to Manuela, and what he meant with it, and what a good translation is. To Manuela, there are probably no doubtful points. She knows exactly what claimer intended, and she has now checked her ruling ** And IMO a claim with a question is OK if the question is something like: "If the spades run I have the rest, if not I concede one trick." Or: "If the spades run I have the rest, if not then I play Diamonds from top for three or four tricks." But any question like: "Do the spades run? If not then I have to think again" is entirely improper. And that is absolutely not what Tim intended. And if it is what claimer said, then his "if not" is not "I'll have to think again" but "I'll have a trick less". Which is an entirely proper way of claiming. PS: I'm working from a new webmail, a horrible one. I hope by now my mails get through, because the thing also insists on adding its name to my mails, of course unknown to blml, so my previous mails bounced. I hope Henk has it settled now. Sven _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From schoderb at msn.com Sat Jul 8 04:42:26 2006 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Sat Jul 8 09:25:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj><002401c6a10e$d8e15d20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c6a224$91b098f0$fdca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: and I have no problem with with what Grattan says as long these examples are very carefully thought out and constructed to make a positive point, and not made to support some individuals personal interpretation of the law. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: gesta@tiscali.co.uk To: BLML Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 3:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] ********************************* Haditha. [;-( ] ======================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin French" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: Atlanta NABCAppealN-03] > > Tennis has two versions of the rules, a small > booklet for players and a huge one for umpires. > Bridge should have the same, one for players > and one for TDs. If players want to know the > Laws in detail, as you suggest some might, > they could buy the TD version. > +=+ In general NBOs' regulations and the tournament Conditions of Contest normally tell players all they need to know. The view I espouse is that the law book should provide a default situation in the law where it extends the power to regulate. I am told that even some major NBOs produce regulations that are deficient. I have evidence also that some TDs are working in the outback of Ruritania and need the law book to help them. It is hoped to have some example applications of law at the back of the 2007 Code. The primary use of the law book is as a working tool for directors. Consideration is also given to the problems of translation into Swahili, but not at the expense of intention and accuracy. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060708/56ff61b4/attachment-0001.htm From john at asimere.com Sat Jul 8 14:22:43 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat Jul 8 14:22:45 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr><5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be><003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> <1152168508.44acb23c82fa8@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <004f01c70338$c374eba0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Manuela Mandache" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] claim snip >Well, I was there, declarer miscounted. She had already made a remark on >the >lines of 'the spades won't do this to me, will they' and very carefully >watched >the first trick in the colour. She was completely taken aback when RHO >(that was >me, actually) rejected the claim. As a TD I'd find this out at the table since I'd ask about the previous trick (a very useful tip by the way) So I'm in agreement with your ruling in this case. Early morning fog in the Channel meant the continent was cut off so I decided to make a reconnaisance of Calais(*) yesterday while the french government wasn't looking. I'm happy to report that it is obviously still English, you can buy fish and chips on the sea front. Part of the reconnaiance was to check the ridiculous assertion that French wine is superior to English beer, so I had to taste large quantities of it. Mmm. Maybe they have a point. I sacked a warehouse and carted away large quantities of the stuff. The tabac where I bought my ciggies has a Union Jack over the door. I think we're getting it back by stealth; most of the cars have English number plates, and the signs are bilingual. "La plage (the beach)" was my favourite, and a strange note "Drive on the right" - I ignored that one of course. (*)the town was besieged and captured by King Edward III of England in 1347 ... The town came to be called the "brightest jewel in the English crown" ... "The end of English rule over Calais came on January 7, 1558. The loss was regarded by Queen Mary I of England as a dreadful misfortune. When she heard the news, she reportedly said "When I am dead and opened, you shall find 'Calais' lying in my heart" " - wikipedia Regards John >Best, >Manuela _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sat Jul 8 14:33:05 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat Jul 8 14:33:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <1152088613.44ab7a257ef8a@imp2-g19.free.fr><006101c7013e$ba975af0$0701a8c0@john> <1152171324.44acbd3c7b0d4@imp2-g19.free.fr> Message-ID: <005401c7033a$360ee200$0701a8c0@john> Essentially one should not make a ruling which is in contravention of law, even if there is established custom and practice that accepts the law is frequently broken. Most of the time breaking the law won't matter. Driving on the left in Calais doesn't really matter much unless I have an accident, would be a good example. (Being the sort of person I am, I did drive on the left for a fair bit yesterday) So when it comes to the interpretation of an irregularity of some sort one must go back to the Law even if people think that the law is written differently from the way that it is. If we don't do it this way we get anarchy as nobody knows whether the law is in force here and today. regards John > >That means that, automatically, declarer implicitly accepts the play, so > >I > >would > >rule 'revoke established' whenever declarer doesn't prevent dummy from > >playi... > >er... placing the card in a played position. > > I don't have a problem with an illegal custom. the card is still "not > played". I've already been told I'm stubborn, so none of your reactions will surprise me :o) I just want to understand the mechanisms of enlarging my philosophy... My statement: if players systematically break the law, they cannot be allowed to pretend they were obeying it the very single time this really matters, and take advantage of it. Is this just an irrelevant (or wrong?!?) moral jugdement? Should I keep to the literal application of the law? Thank you, Manuela _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 8 15:12:03 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Jul 8 15:12:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj><002401c6a10e$d8e15d20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> <000401c6a224$91b098f0$fdca403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001a01c6a290$1bec5020$249868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ In general NBOs' regulations and the > tournament Conditions of Contest normally > tell players all they need to know. The view > I espouse is that the law book should provide > a default situation in the law where it extends > the power to regulate. I am told that even some > major NBOs produce regulations that are > deficient. I have evidence also that some TDs > are working in the outback of Ruritania and > need the law book to help them. It is hoped > to have some example applications of law at > the back of the 2007 Code. > The primary use of the law book is as > a working tool for directors. Consideration > is also given to the problems of translation > into Swahili, but not at the expense of > intention and accuracy. [nige1] IMO, the primary purpose of the law-book should be to accurately specify all rules of the game to *players*. There may be some aspects, mainly of interest to *directors*, and of less relevance to players. Currently, however, it is a severe indictment of law-makers that the average player does not know or understand the law. (Although, judging from the BLML, *directors* fare little better). If law-makers specify the average *player* as their primary target audience, they are more likely to provide helpful definitions or examples; and less likely to miss out important basics or indulge in unnecessary sophistication. From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jul 8 18:11:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jul 8 18:13:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was: AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <001a01c6a290$1bec5020$249868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > It is a severe > indictment of law-makers that the average player > does not know or understand the law. I would suggest that almost all players DO understand the laws. The basic notion is simple, bid and play in tempo and in proper rotation, following suit where possible, explain your agreements to opponents and don't take advantage of UI. Claim when you know the result and explain, as necessary, how you will make your tricks. The problem is that players, despite knowing the above laws, don't bother to follow them. It isn't ignorance which leads players to break the laws. Tim From ljtrent at adelphia.net Sat Jul 8 23:21:00 2006 From: ljtrent at adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Sat Jul 8 23:22:33 2006 Subject: [blml] ACBL NABC Casebooks In-Reply-To: <001501c69a06$b4985040$6501a8c0@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Not in the 15 years I worked on the Casebooks -- The write-up is/was the sole responsibility of the Committee Chairman -- you can't do write-ups by "committee" or they would never get done. When I was involved some "second shots" were given to Committee Chairs when they said something silly or something that didn't make sense and that was only reluctantly done because we had to make allowances for the fact that in addition to creating reports these folks had been up 'til 1 in the morning and were still trying to win NABC+ events. I also AC members have a say, I believe, in what goes into the writeups, and an opportunity to correct them before they are published. Post-hoc comments can be accepted only if signed off by the entire committee. Memories are notoriously unreliable when they involve justifying a position. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California www.marvinfrench.com _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 9 01:32:24 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Jul 9 01:32:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: Message-ID: <002401c6a2e6$c53991a0$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > The problem is that players, despite knowing the > above laws, don't bother to follow them. It > isn't ignorance which leads players to break > the laws. [nige1] For the most part, Tim is right for both players and directors. But BLML and other discussion groups are awash with exceptions where few directors and even fewer players know the law.... For an average player like me, uncertainty starts at a fundamental level. [A] A kibitzer suspects a player of cheating. Should the kibitzer report his observations? Suppose you're a director and a kibitzer comes to you and says "While kibitzing I may have witnessed an infraction but I'm not sure". Should you tell the kibitzer to shut up and go away? [B] At his turn to play, declarer takes a card from his hand and sweeps it in an arc so that it touches the table, returning it to his hand. Declarer holds the card so that defenders can see its face but it is never stationary. Is the card played? [C] Before declarer has turned a card played to the current trick, you lead a card to the next trick. In the resulting confusion, declarer mistakenly touches a card that costs the match. Under current rules, is your ploy legitimate? Should it be? [D] In high-level match, defenders dispute an expert's faulty claim. The poor chap seems to have lost the place completely. However a team-mate points out that when a key suit fails to break, declarer can recover with a jettison triple squeeze (which, in normal circumstances, would be a piece of cake for this declarer). How do you rule? and on and on and on From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 9 02:47:05 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Jul 9 02:49:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <002401c6a2e6$c53991a0$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <004201c6a2f1$5c0223e0$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > The problem is that players, despite knowing the > above laws, don't bother to follow them. It > isn't ignorance which leads players to break > the laws. [nige1, amended] For the most part, Tim is right for both players and directors. But BLML and other discussion groups are awash with exceptions where few directors and even fewer players know the law.... For an average player like me, uncertainty starts at a fundamental level. [A] A kibitzer suspects a player of cheating. Should the kibitzer report his observations? Suppose you're a director and a kibitzer comes to you and says "While kibitzing I may have witnessed an infraction but I'm not sure". Should you tell the kibitzer to shut up and go away? [B] At his turn to play, declarer takes a card from his hand and sweeps it in an arc so that it touches the table, returning it to his hand. Declarer holds the card so that defenders can see its face but it's never stationary. Is the card played? [C] Before declarer has turned a card played to the current trick, you lead a card to the next trick. In the resulting confusion, declarer mistakenly touches a card that costs the match. Under current rules, is your ploy legitimate? Should it be? [D] On the last hand in a high-level match, you lose the place completely. You decide to save yourself further embarrassment with an incomplete claim, disputed by opponents. The director notices that, when a key suit fails to break, declarer can recover with a squeeze, which, in other circumstances, would have been within your capabilities. Was your claim a legitimate ploy? How should the director rule? and on and on and on From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jul 9 04:35:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jul 9 04:36:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <002401c6a2e6$c53991a0$0b9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [A] A kibitzer suspects a player of cheating. > Should the kibitzer report his observations? Of course. Total no-brainer and anyone who thinks the laws preclude such a report (in private to the TD) is an idiot. > Suppose you're a director and a kibitzer comes to > you and says "While kibitzing I may have witnessed > an infraction but I'm not sure". Should you tell > the kibitzer to shut up and go away? No. Just ask "Do you think the OS tried to conceal the infraction?". If so tell me about it, if not keep quiet (unless covered by response above). > [B] At his turn to play, declarer takes a card > from his hand and sweeps it in an arc so that it > touches the table, returning it to his hand. Call the TD if you want to know if the card must be played. If you don't care don't bother. > Declarer holds the card so that defenders can see > its face but it is never stationary. Is the card > played? Call the bleeding TD if you are bothered. > [C] Before declarer has turned a card played to > the current trick, you lead a card to the next > trick. In the resulting confusion, declarer > mistakenly touches a card that costs the match. > Under current rules, is your ploy legitimate? > Should it be? Call the bleeding TD if you are bothered. > [D] In high-level match, defenders dispute an > expert's faulty claim. The poor chap seems to have > lost the place completely. However a team-mate > points out that when a key suit fails to break, > declarer can recover with a jettison triple > squeeze (which, in normal circumstances, would be > a piece of cake for this declarer). How do you > rule? I rule the defence get however many tricks I think likely given the circumstances. There are (possibly) circumstances where a jettison triple squeeze is the only rational play but the class of the declarer isn't relevant if he has "lost the pace completely". > and on and on and on And so what. A competent director can sort any of those problems out. An incompetent director is probably working for free or for a pittance. If players are prepared to pay the TD c.?30,000+/pa equivalent they can get quality rulings, if they are willing to pay only peanuts they will (in all likelihood) get the monkeys they deserve. The rules of bridge are pretty simple, the implications of breaching those rules are as complex as the game itself (very unsimple). A good TD is as experienced/qualified as a good solicitor but 6 tables paying ?5 per head ain't going to fund that - and it doesn't matter a flying f**k how the laws are worded until players care enough to pay for professionalism. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 9 19:20:41 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Jul 9 19:20:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: Message-ID: <000501c6a37c$020cbfe0$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] {SNIP} Call the bleeding TD if you are bothered. And so what. A competent director can sort any of those problems out. An incompetent director is probably working for free or for a pittance. If players are prepared to pay the TD c.?30,000+/pa equivalent they can get quality rulings, if they are willing to pay only peanuts they will (in all likelihood) get the monkeys they deserve. The rules of bridge are pretty simple, the implications of breaching those rules are as complex as the game itself (very unsimple). A good TD is as experienced/qualified as a good solicitor but 6 tables paying ?5 per head ain't going to fund that - and it doesn't matter a flying f**k how the laws are worded until players care enough to pay for professionalism. [nige1] And the more competent and highly paid the director, the more colourful the language? :) If players can't understand the rules, then they are unnecessarily complex. If players can't understand rulings how can they trust them? Redress is apart of the rules. If judgements are inconsistent and inexplicable then how can the average player be reassured that justice has been done? For example, in simple basic cases with relevant facts agreed, the legal system is flawed if... (a) You need to call a director to determine whether you broke the law. The rules should be simple enough for the average player to be able to work out whether his simple action breaks the rules *before* he does it. (b) The director seems reluctant to make a decision -- perhaps because he is aware that another equally competent director is likely to come to a different conclusion. (c) The director invents law on the hoof. Tim implies that L96B below is idiotic. IMO, L96B is just one of several flawed rules; IMO, neither a player nor a director should flout a law just because he dislikes it. [TFLB 76B] "A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director." From twm at cix.co.uk Sun Jul 9 23:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sun Jul 9 23:15:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <000501c6a37c$020cbfe0$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: > *From:* "Guthrie" > *To:* "BLML" > *Date:* Sun, 9 Jul 2006 18:20:41 +0100 > > [Tim West-Meads] > {SNIP} Call the bleeding TD if you are bothered. > > And so what. A competent director can sort any of > those problems out. An incompetent director is > probably working for free or for a pittance. > If players are prepared to pay the TD > c.?30,000+/pa equivalent they can get quality > rulings, if they are willing to pay only peanuts > they will (in all likelihood) get the monkeys they > deserve. > > The rules of bridge are pretty simple, the > implications of breaching those rules are as > complex as the game itself (very unsimple). A > good > TD is as experienced/qualified as a good solicitor > but 6 tables paying ?5 per head ain't going to > fund that - and it doesn't matter a flying > f**k how the laws are worded until players care > enough to pay for professionalism. > > [nige1] > And the more competent and highly paid the > director, the more colourful the language? :) > > If players can't understand the rules, then they > are unnecessarily complex. If players can't > understand rulings how can they trust them? If players can't understand rulings then the TD has failed to explain properly. > Redress is apart of the rules. If judgements are > inconsistent and inexplicable then how can the > average player be reassured that justice has been > done? If judgements are inconsistent and inexplicable the TD has failed to rule properly. > For example, in simple basic cases with relevant > facts agreed, the legal system is flawed if... > (a) You need to call a director to determine > whether you broke the law. In the overwhelmingly majority of TD calls there is no question that an irregularity has occurred - the TD is called to sort the case out. Occasionally there is a disagreement as to the facts (he broke tempo, no he didn't). > The rules should be > simple enough for the average player to be able to > work out whether his simple action breaks the > rules *before* he does it. And in almost all cases they are. The only tricky one is deciding whether there is a non-suggested LA to ones chosen action when in receipt of UI. I'm afraid I can't give an easy solution to that one - UI cases can be complex and no matter how one writes the rules they will remain complex. > (b) The director seems reluctant to make a > decision -- perhaps because he is aware that > another equally competent director is likely to > come to a different conclusion. TDs shouldn't seem reluctant to make decisions. In judgement cases they should clearly state that the nature of the case requires them to consult before giving a ruling. > (c) The director invents law on the hoof. Tim > implies that L96B below is idiotic. IMO, L96B is > just one of several flawed rules; IMO, neither a > player nor a director should flout a law just > because he dislikes it. Tim in no way implies that L76b is idiotic. Tim would penalise a player/spectator who shouted across the room "Hey TD, player X just cheated on board 23!" If a player suspects cheating has occurred he should approach the TD privately and say something like "I saw an incident earlier which worried me." He hasn't drawn attention to an irregularity, he hasn't broken L76b. The TD will *then* ask him to explain what he saw and anything he subsequently reports is said at the "request of the Director". L76b, quite properly IMO, precludes the spectator from raising the matter at the table, or making public accusations. It does not preclude raising the matter with the TD in a discrete and proper manner. While I won't claim that 76b is a model of linguistic clarity there is no way it is as difficult to understand as you make out. Hence I regard your continued assertions that spectators are forbidden from raising such issues with the TD as the idiocy. > [TFLB 76B] > "A spectator may not call attention to any > irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question > of fact or law except by request of the Director." Tim From john at asimere.com Sun Jul 9 23:41:43 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sun Jul 9 23:43:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <000501c6a37c$020cbfe0$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001601c6a3a0$787e5d40$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] > For example, in simple basic cases with relevant > facts agreed, the legal system is flawed if... > (a) You need to call a director to determine > whether you broke the law. The rules should be > simple enough for the average player to be able to > work out whether his simple action breaks the > rules *before* he does it. In your dreams, Nigel. > (b) The director seems reluctant to make a > decision -- perhaps because he is aware that > another equally competent director is likely to > come to a different conclusion. > (c) The director invents law on the hoof. Tim > implies that L96B below is idiotic. IMO, L96B is > just one of several flawed rules; IMO, neither a > player nor a director should flout a law just > because he dislikes it. > [TFLB 76B] > "A spectator may not call attention to any > irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question > of fact or law except by request of the Director." > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 10 00:06:28 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 10 00:06:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: Message-ID: <000c01c6a3a3$ee25f6e0$259868d5@jeushtlj> [nige1] > The rules should be simple enough for the > average player to be able to work out whether > his simple action breaks the rules *before* > he does it. [Tim West-Meads] And in almost all cases they are. The only tricky one is deciding whether there is a non-suggested LA to ones chosen action when in receipt of UI. I'm afraid I can't give an easy solution to that one - UI cases can be complex and no matter how one writes the rules they will remain complex. [nige1] I agree that it is hard to deal with UI and MI (although BLMLers have suggested simplifications to the rules that might help). I kept my four examples simple and basic. Tim tells us what the right ruling would be in one example. Tim claims competent directors would rule on all four examples consistently and would adequately explain their rulings. I confess that I chose examples where BLML directors seem to differ in ruling and explanation. Is that an indictment of BLML directors? I think not. IMO, it reflects inadequacies in the rules. The rules of a game exist to enhance the enjoyment of players; they should be simple enough to be understood by players. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 10 00:10:12 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 10 00:10:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <000501c6a37c$020cbfe0$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> <001601c6a3a0$787e5d40$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <001201c6a3a4$737d66c0$259868d5@jeushtlj> [nige1] >> The rules should be simple enough for the >> average player to be able to work out whether >> his simple action breaks the rules *before* >> he does it. > [John Probst] > In your dreams, Nigel. [nige2] I fear you may be right, John :( From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 10 00:34:40 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon Jul 10 00:34:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj><002401c6a10e$d8e15d20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com><000401c6a224$91b098f0$fdca403e@Mildred> <001a01c6a290$1bec5020$249868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <006001c6a3a8$0f68d6c0$65ee403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 2:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? [ was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] > [nige1] > IMO, the primary purpose of the law-book should > be to accurately specify all rules of the game to > *players*. There may be some aspects, mainly of > interest to *directors*, and of less relevance to > players. Currently, however, it is a severe > indictment of law-makers that the average player > does not know or understand the law. (Although, > judging from the BLML, *directors* fare little > better). If law-makers specify the average > *player* as their primary target audience, they > are more likely to provide helpful definitions or > examples; and less likely to miss out important > basics or indulge in unnecessary sophistication. > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 10 00:35:03 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jul 10 00:41:02 2006 Subject: [blml] who should know which rules? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >>I have evidence also that some TDs are >>working in the outback of Ruritania and >>need the law book to help them. It is hoped >>to have some example applications of law at >>the back of the 2007 Code. [snip] William Schoder: >and I have no problem with what Grattan >says as long these examples are very >carefully thought out and constructed to >make a positive point, and not made to >support some individual's personal >interpretation of the law. > >Kojak Richard Hills: I agree with both Grattan and Kojak. The current 1997 Lawbook's solitary indicative example (the footnote to Law 75) is part of the Lawbook and therefore officially binding guidance to TDs. If the 2008 Lawbook's multiple indicative examples will also be officially binding guidance, then like the numbered Laws they must be authorised by the Portland Club and the other promulgating authorities. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jul 10 01:04:59 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Mon Jul 10 01:04:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Happy Snappers (was Re: who should know which rules?) References: <000501c6a37c$020cbfe0$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <007801c6a3ac$400cf050$65ee403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] > The rules should be simple enough for the average > player to be able to work out whether his simple > action breaks the rules *before* he does it. < +=+ Thus the Laws of Bridge should be purely mechanical, like the Rules of Snap. The questions would be simply questions of fact. Disputes as to facts would rarely arise - it is well established that the Courts are rarely troubled with disputes as to facts. Yes? And of course removal of the exercise of judgement would take away nothing of the attractions of the game for players. Right? ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 10 01:20:29 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jul 10 01:22:06 2006 Subject: [blml] tempo Message-ID: <3EC63D91-D17F-4C26-AE95-BC2560F515F7@rochester.rr.com> North, dealer, opens 3 spades (with or without a "stop" card, as I don't believe that makes any difference). East promptly (1-2 seconds) passes. South, whose normal tempo is about 3-4 seconds, pauses for about 12 seconds before calling. Has he broken tempo? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 10 02:31:37 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 10 02:31:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? References: <200510150215.TAA00766@mailhub.irvine.com><001101c5d14c$921e34e0$6601a8c0@san.rr.com><002d01c5d186$392b77a0$129868d5@jeushtlj><00e301c5d1df$9bc33160$129868d5@jeushtlj><3594A0D2-A10A-492D-AEE7-F01866A02BB0@rochester.rr.com><009d01c6a106$24cb0b40$1a9468d5@jeushtlj><002401c6a10e$d8e15d20$6501a8c0@san.rr.com><000401c6a224$91b098f0$fdca403e@Mildred><001a01c6a290$1bec5020$249868d5@jeushtlj> <006001c6a3a8$0f68d6c0$65ee403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <002401c6a3b8$34facf00$259868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Now let me see if I have got this right. > 1. As players not many TD's are above average. [nige1] Is top-posting the new BLML fashion? I guess some directors are above, some below, and some average. [Grattan] > 2. The laws should be written to be understood > by average players. [nige1] That is a worthy aim. {Grattan] > 3. So if the majority of TDs understand the laws the primary purpose of the law-book is fulfilled. Right? [nige1] If the majority of directors understood the laws that would be an improvement. Even better would be if law-makers made the laws simple and clear enough to persuade players to learn them as well. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jul 10 02:58:37 2006 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon Jul 10 03:00:21 2006 Subject: [blml] tempo References: <3EC63D91-D17F-4C26-AE95-BC2560F515F7@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <004b01c6a3bb$fad8ec90$6400a8c0@rota> Ed Reppert writes: > North, dealer, opens 3 spades (with or without a "stop" card, as I don't > believe that makes any difference). East promptly (1-2 seconds) passes. > South, whose normal tempo is about 3-4 seconds, pauses for about 12 > seconds before calling. Has he broken tempo? No, South has not broken tempo. He was entitled to 10 seconds to make his decision over the skip bid, and East's fast pass cannot deprive South of his right to think for those 10 seconds. In fact, I believe that South is being actively ethical here if he bids at the same time that he would have bid if East had waited 10 seconds before passing; otherwise, South will pass information when he calls quickly. If North used the stop card, East made a fast pass, and then E-W objected to the N-S tempo, I would be inclined to impose a procedural penalty on E-W, as well as denying any adjustment. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 10 03:02:05 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 10 03:15:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Happy Snappers (was Re: who should know which rules?) References: <000501c6a37c$020cbfe0$1c9468d5@jeushtlj> <007801c6a3ac$400cf050$65ee403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <003501c6a3be$5b0f9760$259868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ Thus the Laws of Bridge should be purely > mechanical, like the Rules of Snap. [nige1] AFIK, nobody said that. We all agree that many aspects of Bridge Law must involve subjective judgement if the game is to retain its essential character. With that proviso, IMO, the rules should be as objective as possible. [Grattan] > The questions would be simply questions of fact. > Disputes as to facts would rarely arise - it is > well established that the Courts are rarely > troubled with disputes as to facts. Yes? [nige1] With clear, simple, complete, consistent laws: Yes: I hope so. I gave 4 simple basic Bridge Law cases, with agreed facts, about which I doubt there would be agreement among BLML directors. [Grattan] > And of course removal of the exercise of judgement > would take away nothing of the attractions of the > game for players. Right? [nige1] Absolutely! Removal of unnecessary subjective judgement in rulings would enhance the attraction of the game to players. (Because it would make the decisions more consistent and easier to understand). It would not affect the need for judgement in bidding and play. Poker has simple, fairly objective rules that still require the player to exercise judgement. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 10 03:14:46 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 10 03:15:47 2006 Subject: [blml] tempo References: <3EC63D91-D17F-4C26-AE95-BC2560F515F7@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <003601c6a3be$5c0b5c80$259868d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > North, dealer, opens 3 spades (with or without > a "stop" card, as I don't believe that makes > any difference). East promptly (1-2 seconds) > passes. South, whose normal tempo is about 3-4 > seconds, pauses for about 12 seconds before > calling. Has he broken tempo? [Nige1] It does makes a difference whether there is a rule that, in the given context, the pre-emptor's LHO must pause for a prescribed period (say 10 secs). If there is such a rule, then the pre-emptor's partner can pause for 3-14 seconds, without breaking tempo. Without such a rule, the pre-emptor's partner broke tempo. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 10 03:42:19 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jul 10 04:07:33 2006 Subject: [blml] tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3EC63D91-D17F-4C26-AE95-BC2560F515F7@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Ed Reppert: >North, dealer, opens 3 spades (with or without a "stop" card, as >I don't believe that makes any difference). East promptly (1-2 >seconds) passes. South, whose normal tempo is about 3-4 seconds, >pauses for about 12 seconds before calling. Has he broken tempo? Richard Hills: A trick question which highlights the ambiguity of pronouns. Yes, "he" has broken tempo, but "he" is the "faster than a speeding bullet" East. West's subsequent selection amongst logical alternatives would therefore be limited by Law 16. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 10 06:33:22 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jul 10 06:35:04 2006 Subject: [blml] tempo [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <251751A5-17C0-4001-B471-BBE211A03B4F@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 9, 2006, at 9:42 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > A trick question which highlights the ambiguity of pronouns. > > Yes, "he" has broken tempo, but "he" is the "faster than a > speeding bullet" East. West's subsequent selection amongst > logical alternatives would therefore be limited by Law 16. I am no expert grammarian, but I see no ambiguity. The pronoun refers to the last player named, which was South. As for tricks, certainly none were intended, and if you read one into it, you were seeing things that weren't there. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 10 11:31:31 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Jul 10 11:24:21 2006 Subject: [blml] tempo In-Reply-To: <3EC63D91-D17F-4C26-AE95-BC2560F515F7@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710112027.0209a440@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 19:20 9/07/2006 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >North, dealer, opens 3 spades (with or without a "stop" card, as I >don't believe that makes any difference). East promptly (1-2 seconds) >passes. South, whose normal tempo is about 3-4 seconds, pauses for >about 12 seconds before calling. Has he broken tempo? I'd say he hasn't. If I were South (with a normal tempo of less than 3-4 seconds), the first 10 seconds would have been spent looking severely at East ; one might think this is not a valuable bridge reason, but surprise, or even deliberating whether to call the TD, could. SMOn, I think the stop procedure is there to protect everyone from giving away and receiving information, including the skipper's partner. That is, South can use East's forced tempo to decide what he would do over East's most common calls (if East doubles 2S, do I go all the way with a 4S bid, or would 2NT or a fit-jump be better ?). He was deprived of that opportunity, ergo he may use the 10 seconds he was entitled to. If this helps North, to bad for East, who is responsible for that. Best regards, Alain From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 10 12:00:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jul 10 12:02:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <000c01c6a3a3$ee25f6e0$259868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > I kept my four examples simple and basic. Tim > tells us what the right ruling would be in one > example. Tim claims competent directors would rule > on all four examples consistently and would > adequately explain their rulings. I confess that I > chose examples where BLML directors seem to differ > in ruling and explanation. Is that an indictment > of BLML directors? I think not. IMO, it reflects > inadequacies in the rules. The cases were simple, the "facts" incomplete. E.G: > [B] At his turn to play, declarer takes a card > from his hand and sweeps it in an arc so that it > touches the table, returning it to his hand. > Declarer holds the card so that defenders can see > its face but it is never stationary. Is the card > played? In neither case is the card "played" (see L45a) and declarers actions constitute an irregularity, in both cases it is a matter of whether the card "must be played" L45c2. The TD should require that the offending action be repeated (agreed by both sides) and then make a judgement. E.g one could have a card face up just above the table and tilt it towards each opponent in turn but never quite stationary and TDs will rule "must be played", or one could move a card towards the table, withdraw it saying "Is it too late for me to change?" but leaving it still visible (albeit moving slowly) and TDs would not rule "must be played". And that "arc" - did declarer slow down such that the card spent 2-3 seconds traversing the bottom 5 degrees or was the card travelling at considerable speed throughout? Was any verbal or other indication given that declarer did not wish to play the card? Regardless of whether we rule that the card must be played we can adjust to prevent any gain that may have accrued to declarer from his failure to follow L45a. (And I assert that 99.9% of players do actually know L45a - the only bit they need to know). Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jul 10 13:55:43 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Mon Jul 10 13:57:29 2006 Subject: [blml] tempo In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710112027.0209a440@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710112027.0209a440@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1207586622e0fc691fc6c121c145054b@smtp.realdsl.be> I agree with Alain, but only up to a point - see below Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be At 19:20 9/07/2006 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >North, dealer, opens 3 spades (with or without a "stop" card, as I >don't believe that makes any difference). East promptly (1-2 seconds) >passes. South, whose normal tempo is about 3-4 seconds, pauses for >about 12 seconds before calling. Has he broken tempo? I'd say he hasn't. If I were South (with a normal tempo of less than 3-4 seconds), the first 10 seconds would have been spent looking severely at East ; one might think this is not a valuable bridge reason, but surprise, or even deliberating whether to call the TD, could. SMOn, I think the stop procedure is there to protect everyone from giving away and receiving information, including the skipper's partner. That is, South can use East's forced tempo to decide what he would do over East's most common calls (if East doubles 2S, do I go all the way with a 4S bid, or would 2NT or a fit-jump be better ?). He was deprived of that opportunity, ergo he may use the 10 seconds he was entitled to. If this helps North, to bad for East, who is responsible for that. hdw: I believe this protection is only there is the stop card is being used. In the original, Ed wrote it would not make a difference. I believe it does. When I make a skip bid, I always leave the stop card for a further 7 seconds (or so) after next person has passed too quickly, precisely in order to give my partner some additional thinking time. But if I don't use the stop card, or take it away immediately after a (too quick) pass, I don't believe I give my partner any such opportunities. I have never explicitely stated so at the table, but I believe my partner should also respect the stop period in order not to convey to me that he has no problems either. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 10 15:21:06 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jul 10 15:22:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707103731.02a45890@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060710085547.02b7aa70@pop.starpower.net> At 11:56 AM 7/7/06, Roger wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > At 07:59 AM 7/6/06, Roger wrote: > > > > >Once again John's keen insight is profound. I suggest examining the > > >effect: > > > > > >Now For the sake of demonstration consider dummy's hand where a spade > > >is the > > >OL and the SA is singleton in dummy. Dummy uninstructed plops it in a > > >played position. At T3 it is pointed out that no card from dummy was > > >+played+ to T1. Since the SA has not been played it +must+ be > returned >to > > >dummy's hand whereby T1 is defective and thus was won by one of > the three > > >cards +played+ to it. Per L67 T1 must be corrected and one of dummy's > > >cards > > >added to T1- ostensibly the ace. And that correction does not affect > > >ownership of T1. > > > > Nonsense. We actually have a thread here which seems to be coming to a > > common-sense consensus: The SA was played *when declarer noticed that > > dummy had placed it as though it had been played and failed to object* > > (this point *must* have been reached when he turned trick one without > > saying anything). An appropriate legal justification is that failing > > to object to dummy's action, once noticed, constitutes "otherwise > > designat[ing] it as the card he proposed to play" per L45C5(a). > >The assertion was that when dummy puts a card in a played position given >that declarer gave no instruction to do so, it has not been played. The >assertion was tested for its effect. Nothing else. The asserion was that when dummy puts a card in a played position given that declarer gave no instruction to do so, is has not *yet* been played. It becomes played when declarer acknowledges that it is the card he intends to play. Remember, we're talking about no-choice cases, where the dummy has a singleton, or only touching cards. Declarer needn't conform precisely to L46A; since he hasn't, L46B applies, but has no effect. >Now. If the card had not been played at the point in time that dummy >put it >in a played position, then it remains so until declarer so designates >according to law. It is designated per L46B as soon as declarer gives any indication that he wishes to play it (i.e. to play a card). Failing to object to RHO's attempt to follow to it is probably sufficient. Turning the trick is certainly sufficient. What will Roger do when dummy, to his right, plays a singleton unasked, and declarer turns to him and says, "Your turn"? Demand that declarer read off the rank and suit of the singleton before he will play? In my club, we would call that a potential violation of L74B4 ("prolonging play unnecessarily... for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent"). >What is nonsense is your asserting that declarer playing >a card and then turning it over fulfills the requirement of law that >dummy's >non-played card is now played. I assert that when declarer turns the trick, he implicitly acknowledges that he has completed the trick. I do not assume that his intention is to quit a defective trick to which he has not yet played from dummy. It is that assumption that I call "nonsense". >A large number have this belief that because only declarer is legally >allowed to designate a card to be played from dummy that if the >designation >by declarer isn't made then the card is not a played card to the trick >under >any circumstances. The "circumstances" that make it a played card are declarer's indicating in some manner that it is a played card. When the lead is made, dummy has a singleton, and declarer says, "Play it," it is played, notwithstanding that its rank and suit have not been named. I argue that he doesn't need to say anything at all; he can nod, he can turn expectantly to his RHO, or he can simply let the trick play out without objecting. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 10 15:34:24 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jul 10 15:36:29 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <6BCA3B02-4B77-4417-9677-DEC79051789F@rochester.rr.com> References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr> <5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707101246.02b13010@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707165045.030ca0a0@pop.starpower.net> <6BCA3B02-4B77-4417-9677-DEC79051789F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060710092841.02b889b0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:31 PM 7/7/06, Ed wrote: >On Jul 7, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>I see where Ed is going, but I still don't see how he gets there. >>If declarer "miscounts", doesn't that mean that he, perforce, >>"assumes a distribution that doesn't exist"? If he "assumes a >>distribution that doesn't exist", must he not have either >>"miscounted" or not counted at all? Whatever you call it, his >>claim depends on his having the correct count, and he doesn't. > >If I know there are 6 cards out, then I know they break either 6-0, >5-1, 4-2, or 3-3. If I then play one round, see that both defenders >follow, and then *assume* the suit must break 4-2 or 3-3, I haven't >miscounted the suit, I've made a wrong assumption about the >distributions eliminated when both opponents follow to one trick. > >If I think there are 5 cards out (because I've miscounted), then they >break either 5-0, 4-1, or 3-2. If both follow to a trick, then I will >think the only possible distributions are 4-1 or 3-2, which means my >fifth card will be good, just as it would be in the first case if >they didn't break 5-1. But the reasoning is different, and so is the >reason for the error. We are differing over semantics here. If I'm playing a seven-card fit, LHO follows once, and I convince myself that the suit must have started 3-3 or 4-2, did I think I already saw LHO discard one (a miscount by Ed's definition), or did I just "forget" that six cards can divide 5-1 (which I'd call a "miscount", but Ed would not)? Should it make any difference to the ruling on my claim? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 10 15:46:10 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 10 15:46:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: Message-ID: <001a01c6a427$34e76ea0$129868d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > The cases were simple, the "facts" incomplete. > E.G: >> [B] At his turn to play, declarer takes a card >> from his hand and sweeps it in an arc so that it >> touches the table, returning it to his hand. >> Declarer holds the card so that defenders can see >> its face but it is never stationary. Is the card >> played? > In neither case is the card "played" (see L45a) > and declarers actions constitute an irregularity, > in both cases it is a matter of whether the card > "must be played" L45c2. The TD should require > that the offending action be repeated (agreed by > both sides) and then make a judgement. E.g one > could have a card face up just above the table and > tilt it towards each opponent in turn but never > quite stationary and TDs will rule "must be > played", or one could move a card towards the > table, withdraw it saying "Is it too late for me > to change?" but leaving it still visible (albeit > moving slowly) and TDs would not rule "must be > played". And that "arc" - did declarer slow down > such that the card spent 2-3 seconds traversing > the bottom 5 degrees or was the card travelling > at considerable speed throughout? Was any verbal > or other indication given that declarer did not > wish to play the card? Regardless of whether we > rule that the card must be played we can adjust > to prevent any gain that may have accrued to > declarer from his failure to follow L45a. (And I > assert that 99.9% of players do actually know > L45a - the only bit they need to know). [nige1] In my example (a single case), declarer detaches a card from his hand and faces it on the table surface. IMO, according to law 45A (below), it is played. IMO, law 45C2 (also below) confirms this. All that remains is for declarer to return the card, face-up, to the table, so that the trick may be completed. Tim's speculations weren't part of the stated facts; nor, given the stated facts, would they be relevant, IMO. In similar BLML cases, however, several senior directors insist that it is not sufficient that you detach the card, hold it and face it, touching the table; they don't deem the card played, unless you hold it *stationary* (or otherwise more clearly indicate your intention). Presumably, these directors misinterpret the law or are privy to some obscure minute that alters its meaning; but they engender confusion among players and directors. IMO, a simpler clearer law would help to remove such confusion. Such quibbles would be less important if the legal problems illustrated in the basic examples were isolated cases; but unless we can agree that the law needs tightening up in such trivial cases, it seems pointless to try to discuss worse flaws in more sophisticated laws. [TFLB L45A] Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing [footnote: The opening lead is first made face down (unless the sponsoring organisation directs otherwise)] it on the table immediately before him. [TFLB Law 45C2] Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 10 16:13:11 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Jul 10 16:14:49 2006 Subject: [blml] tempo In-Reply-To: <1207586622e0fc691fc6c121c145054b@smtp.realdsl.be> Message-ID: >From: "Herman De wael" >Reply-To: hermandw@hdw.be >To: blml@rtflb.org >Subject: Re: [blml] tempo >Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 06:55:43 -0500 > > > >I agree with Alain, but only up to a point - see below >Herman De Wael >Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium >www.hdw.be > > At 19:20 9/07/2006 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >North, dealer, opens 3 spades (with or without a "stop" card, as I > >don't believe that makes any difference). East promptly (1-2 seconds) > >passes. South, whose normal tempo is about 3-4 seconds, pauses for > >about 12 seconds before calling. Has he broken tempo? > > I'd say he hasn't. If I were South (with a normal tempo of less than 3-4 > seconds), the first 10 seconds would have been spent looking severely at > East ; one might think this is not a valuable bridge reason, but >surprise, > or even deliberating whether to call the TD, could. > > SMOn, I think the stop procedure is there to protect everyone from giving > away and receiving information, including the skipper's partner. That is, > South can use East's forced tempo to decide what he would do over East's > most common calls (if East doubles 2S, do I go all the way with a 4S bid, > or would 2NT or a fit-jump be better ?). He was deprived of that > opportunity, ergo he may use the 10 seconds he was entitled to. If this > helps North, to bad for East, who is responsible for that. > >hdw: > >I believe this protection is only there is the stop card is being used. In >the original, Ed wrote it would not make a difference. I believe it does. >When I make a skip bid, I always leave the stop card for a further 7 >seconds (or so) after next person has passed too quickly, precisely in >order to give my partner some additional thinking time. >But if I don't use the stop card, or take it away immediately after a (too >quick) pass, I don't believe I give my partner any such opportunities. >I have never explicitely stated so at the table, but I believe my partner >should also respect the stop period in order not to convey to me that he >has no problems either. I think this very astute. My feelings could be reflected by imagining that I am on my way to Australia to play with Peter Gill. [Maybe ten years ago I played with one of Peter’s friends, had a jolly time, so I’m sure it will be great fun to play with Peter.] Anyway, in the States I am comfortable with ¼s to ½ s while after jumps it is very comfortable to take 10s. But in Australia, to avoid creating UI all bidding is done at one’s normal tempo, which means that I will adopt a normal tempo of 10s in order to deal with jump bids [bid jumping is the national pastime in Australia, isn’t it?]. yeah, I know that it is rougher on me than them to take 10s, but since I will almost never create UI, I know that peter will be able to have free rein of judgment and bid great. And certainly, all the other players have adopted a 10s pace as well for the same reason. Well, haven’t they???? This is the skivvy. In Australia most 3-round auctions ought to take 120s since that is 12 calls at 10s. I know that I will be bored to tears but it makes for a fair game without UI rulings and I will take it with gratitude. But that is not what players really do. Some turns take 1s others take 30s. The point is that it is reasonable to expect [though in practice they don’t deliver] players to know their methods well enough to find a pace they are comfortable with when the bidding isn’t obstructed. And it is reasonable to expect that when the bidding is obstructed that there is the need [to take additional time] by at least one player to evaluate the change of risk in the situation for the purpose of finding the best route. The normal situation [unobstructed auction] shouldn’t need a lot of time. Jump bids usually need significant time. And what a skip bid pause does is to give all players with good tempo a solution for their UI/ improper deception problem as they no longer need to adopt a 10s, or, 15s, or, 20s as normal tempo- which is what players in Australia need to do because of their bidding regulation. Some years ago I started finishing out pauses that RHO failed to do, not because I needed the time, but because someone including me might need the time. I feel some vindication for the practice since someone else has gotten the same idea. However, I will go so far as to mention that there is a need for a pause in addition to the skip bid that benefits players far more- one hundred times more. And that is a pause before starting the auction. The auction should not start until after all players are ready [or at least until they appear to be ready]. The 30 or 40s that are spent making plans are repaid many times over by auctions that take one minute instead of four.. not to mention that tempo breaks are smaller and less frequent. Thousands of times a player has glanced at his hand a slaps a pass or bid before others have planned their hands and when the auction gets back around a minute later the speed bidder hesitates a minute! What I do when there is a speed bidder is to wait until everyone is ready before proceeding- and the hand is competed two minutes faster for doing so. P.s. and without the intimidation everyone plays better too. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 10 16:15:43 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jul 10 16:20:58 2006 Subject: [blml] tempo In-Reply-To: <1207586622e0fc691fc6c121c145054b@smtp.realdsl.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710112027.0209a440@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1207586622e0fc691fc6c121c145054b@smtp.realdsl.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060710100055.02b6c350@pop.starpower.net> At 07:55 AM 7/10/06, hermandw wrote: > At 19:20 9/07/2006 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > >North, dealer, opens 3 spades (with or without a "stop" card, as I > >don't believe that makes any difference). East promptly (1-2 seconds) > >passes. South, whose normal tempo is about 3-4 seconds, pauses for > >about 12 seconds before calling. Has he broken tempo? > > I'd say he hasn't. If I were South (with a normal tempo of less than > 3-4 > seconds), the first 10 seconds would have been spent looking > severely at > East ; one might think this is not a valuable bridge reason, but > surprise, > or even deliberating whether to call the TD, could. > > SMOn, I think the stop procedure is there to protect everyone from > giving > away and receiving information, including the skipper's partner. > That is, > South can use East's forced tempo to decide what he would do over > East's > most common calls (if East doubles 2S, do I go all the way with a 4S > bid, > or would 2NT or a fit-jump be better ?). He was deprived of that > opportunity, ergo he may use the 10 seconds he was entitled to. If this > helps North, to bad for East, who is responsible for that. > >I believe this protection is only there is the stop card is being >used. In the original, Ed wrote it would not make a difference. I >believe it does. >When I make a skip bid, I always leave the stop card for a further 7 >seconds (or so) after next person has passed too quickly, precisely in >order to give my partner some additional thinking time. >But if I don't use the stop card, or take it away immediately after a >(too quick) pass, I don't believe I give my partner any such opportunities. Ed was presumably speaking in the context of ACBL regulations, where one's obligations following an opponent's skip-bid are, by regulation, unaffected by whether or not a proper warning (either verbally or via the stop card) has been given. And if an opponent does place the stop card on the table, one's obligations are unaffected by when he picks it up. At least in theory... In practice, many ACBL TDs do seem to be more lenient with regard to marginally improper tempos after a skip bid if no warning of any kind has been given. That's probably technically not legal, but doesn't seem to cause problems. The ACBL's position has changed more than once, and the current state of the regs may not be as widely known as we would like. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Mon Jul 10 16:19:30 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Jul 10 16:21:09 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Jul 2006 07:15:56 +1000." <132109DD2E681C47B2B2FF6FDC56693401D64F61@FALEX02.au.fjanz.com> Message-ID: <200607101407.HAA20430@mailhub.irvine.com> Peter Newman wrote: > ...... > had always assumed that the primary purpose of the claim laws, and the reas= > on why there is no play after the claim, is to prevent declarer gaining an = > example by claiming, for instance from the reaction of the opponents. >

=0D=0A=0D=0A

Robin=0D=0A<= > /P>=0D=0A=0D=0A

As one of the propone= > nts of being able to face your cards I have two comments:=0D=0A

=0D= > =0A=0D=0A

(1) As declarer I see a new= > 'open' mode of play - it is not a claim. Quite often at some point in a ha= > nd I am pretty certain I can make it and defender is in the tank. I can't w= > ord a claim statement clearly enough to cover every eventuality so sit ther= > ...... Sorry, but this is what a portion of your text looks like to me. I'm sure there are others with the same problem. I had to run it through a decoder in order to read it. I'm not an expert on this sort of thing, but I'm sure there are others with the same problem. Anyway, for everyone else for whom Peter's message might have been unreadable, here it is: [Nigel:] > > > I accept Robin's argument, however: the potential for > > > abuse by an > > > unethical declarer is a downside. > > > Are there other > > > downsides? Probably! Do all possible downsides > > > outweigh the downsides > > > (complexity, inconsistency) of existing claim > > > law? > > > You know my view. > > > What do others think? [Adam:] > > I think Robin's downside, all by itself, outweighs > > the downsides of > > existing claim law. > > -- > > Adam > > _______________________________________________ [Robin:] > I had always > assumed that the primary purpose of the claim laws, and the > reason why > there is no play after the claim, is to prevent declarer > gaining an > example by claiming, for instance from the reaction of > the > opponents. > > Robin As one of the proponents of being able to face your cards I have two comments: (1) As declarer I see a new 'open' mode of play - it is not a claim. Quite often at some point in a hand I am pretty certain I can make it and defender is in the tank. I can't word a claim statement clearly enough to cover every eventuality so sit there. I would like to be able to say 'playing open' and place my cards on the table. The defenders can then choose to (with absolutely no requirement to do so) concede. (2) After a claim some defenders want the right to have play continue (particularly LOLs). By law I claim when I should - this is often well before the defenders understand the claim. If the defenders *want* me to play it out should it be allowed? I can see that that this isn't so clear. I have illegally stopped claiming against pairs I judge are like this until I can point to either my hand or dummy being high. Maybe that is the best solution in this case? The 'object to a claim featur'e in online bridge seems to work pretty well in practise the few times I played. Obviously this has the potential of being bent but perhaps harder to judge the reason for rejection online? It still needs to be considered further I would think. Cheers, Peter PS: Sorry if this breaks threading - I only get digest mode and don't get the individual mail headers.... This is an email from Fujitsu Australia Limited, ABN 19 001 011 427. It is confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it was addressed and may contain copyright and/or legally privileged information. No one else may read, print, store, copy or forward all or any of it or its attachments. If you receive this email in error, please return to sender. Thank you. If you do not wish to receive commercial email messages from Fujitsu Australia Limited, please email unsubscribe@au.fujitsu.com From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 10 16:32:46 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 10 16:32:53 2006 Subject: [blml] claim References: <1151739724.44a6274c3f3be@imp3-g19.free.fr><5.1.0.14.0.20060703110020.0274e380@pop.ulb.ac.be><003301c69eb9$ef46f0e0$0701a8c0@john><6.1.1.1.0.20060707101246.02b13010@pop.starpower.net><6.1.1.1.0.20060707165045.030ca0a0@pop.starpower.net><6BCA3B02-4B77-4417-9677-DEC79051789F@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060710092841.02b889b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003301c6a42d$b695ec00$129868d5@jeushtlj> [Eric Landau] > We are differing over semantics here. If I'm > playing a seven-card fit, LHO follows once, > and I convince myself that the suit must have > started 3-3 or 4-2, > [A] did I think I already saw LHO discard one > (a miscount by Ed's definition), or > [B] did I just "forget" that six cards can > divide 5-1 (which I'd call a "miscount", but > Ed would not)? > Should it make any difference to the ruling > on my claim? [nigel] Perhaps we could call [A] a miscount and [B] a misconception. We average players are prone to misconceptions [B]. An expert is unlikely to make either mistake. Distributions tend to be burnt into an expert's memory. So, if anything, an expert is more likely to "lose the place" with a miscount [A] due to a short-term memory lapse -- for example misreading or misremembering a discard. If this contention is correct, an expert is less likely to be woken up by an early show-out; but more likely to be woken up by the non-appearance of a key card. For example, in Manuela's example, the expert may wonder "if that is all the spades, why has the ten not appeared on this trick?" Again, in Manuela's example, if declarer had (carelessly but not irrationally) discarded a diamond before playing the penultimate spade, it would be too late for him to recover. The more interesting question to me, is that If you are aware of losing the place, is it a legitimate ploy to make an incomplete claim, in the hope that you are lucky enough to acquire the services of a director, who is familiar with current legal trends, who is a good card-player and who has a high opinion of your skills? I assume that you don't have to volunteer information about your state of mind unless the director asks; (and Directors rarely ask, in my experience). This was one of the four examples, I mentioned earlier. From axman22 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 10 17:06:49 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon Jul 10 17:08:29 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060710085547.02b7aa70@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: >From: Eric Landau >To: Bridge Laws Discussion List >Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established? >Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 09:21:06 -0400 > >At 11:56 AM 7/7/06, Roger wrote: > >>From: "Eric Landau" >> >> > At 07:59 AM 7/6/06, Roger wrote: >> > >> > >Once again John's keen insight is profound. I suggest examining the >> > >effect: >> > > >> > >Now For the sake of demonstration consider dummy's hand where a spade >> > >is the >> > >OL and the SA is singleton in dummy. Dummy uninstructed plops it in a >> > >played position. At T3 it is pointed out that no card from dummy was >> > >+played+ to T1. Since the SA has not been played it +must+ be >>returned >>to >> > >dummy's hand whereby T1 is defective and thus was won by one of the >>three >> > >cards +played+ to it. Per L67 T1 must be corrected and one of dummy's >> > >cards >> > >added to T1- ostensibly the ace. And that correction does not affect >> > >ownership of T1. >> >> > Nonsense. We actually have a thread here which seems to be coming to a >> > common-sense consensus: The SA was played *when declarer noticed that >> > dummy had placed it as though it had been played and failed to object* >> > (this point *must* have been reached when he turned trick one without >> > saying anything). An appropriate legal justification is that failing >> > to object to dummy's action, once noticed, constitutes "otherwise >> > designat[ing] it as the card he proposed to play" per L45C5(a). >> >>The assertion was that when dummy puts a card in a played position given >>that declarer gave no instruction to do so, it has not been played. The >>assertion was tested for its effect. Nothing else. >The asserion was that when dummy puts a card in a played position given >that declarer gave no instruction to do so, is has not *yet* been played. This wasn't the assertion at ALL. the assertion was that the card had not been played as declarer had not so designated it. As such, the way you put it can be logically true for the reason that the card that had not been played can be said to have not been played yet. Which is irrelevant to the discussion. >It becomes played when declarer acknowledges that it is the card he intends >to play. Remember, we're talking about no-choice cases, where the dummy >has a singleton, or only touching cards. No, we are talking about the general case of which includes the singleton- and that case was used. >Declarer needn't conform precisely to L46A; since he hasn't, L46B applies, >but has no effect. >>Now. If the card had not been played at the point in time that dummy put >>it >>in a played position, then it remains so until declarer so designates >>according to law. > >It is designated per L46B as soon as declarer gives any indication that he >wishes to play it (i.e. to play a card). Failing to object to RHO's >attempt to follow to it is probably sufficient. Turning the trick is >certainly sufficient. What will Roger do when dummy, to his right, plays a >singleton unasked, and declarer turns to him and says, "Your turn"? Demand >that declarer read off the rank and suit of the singleton before he will >play? In my club, we would call that a potential violation of L74B4 >("prolonging play unnecessarily... for the purpose of disconcerting an >opponent"). It has been asserted others that a non-desigantion is not an incomplete designation. I concur. It is declarer that is not following the rules and is doing the intimidation- and unnecessarily delaying the game by doing so. > >>What is nonsense is your asserting that declarer playing >>a card and then turning it over fulfills the requirement of law that >>dummy's >>non-played card is now played. > >I assert that when declarer turns the trick, he implicitly acknowledges >that he has completed the trick. I do not assume that his intention is to >quit a defective trick to which he has not yet played from dummy. It is >that assumption that I call "nonsense". So, the play of dummy's card becomes explicit once declarer tuens his card. I point out that the time to turn a trick is after the trick is over. So, when declarer turns his card when dummy has not played, then dummy's card* then is played- to, and is the lead for, the next trick.QED *the card dummy put in a played position without instruction See. I can change your subject too. But, did I? regards roger pewick >>A large number have this belief that because only declarer is legally >>allowed to designate a card to be played from dummy that if the >>designation >>by declarer isn't made then the card is not a played card to the trick >>under >>any circumstances. > >The "circumstances" that make it a played card are declarer's indicating in >some manner that it is a played card. When the lead is made, dummy has a >singleton, and declarer says, "Play it," it is played, notwithstanding that >its rank and suit have not been named. I argue that he doesn't need to say >anything at all; he can nod, he can turn expectantly to his RHO, or he can >simply let the trick play out without objecting. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 10 18:08:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jul 10 18:10:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <001a01c6a427$34e76ea0$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > In my example (a single case), declarer detaches a > card from his hand and faces it on the table > surface. That is NOT what you wrote before. In your prior examples the card never left declarer's hand. A card is either "faced on the table" or it is in declarer's hand - it can't be both. Thus in the examples you gave *originally* the requirements for L45A are clearly not met. While L45c2 isn't a model of clarity it attempts to distinguish between cards which touch the table momentarily in the act of retraction and cards which the declarer keeps near the table for long enough for his opps to believe the card played. There is a durational meaning to "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as.." that would not be there if the law had been written "if a held card touches the table, or is maintained...". If it helps think of the difference between "they held hands" and "they touched hands". Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 10 19:42:55 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jul 10 19:44:37 2006 Subject: [blml] tempo In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060710100055.02b6c350@pop.starpower.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710112027.0209a440@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1207586622e0fc691fc6c121c145054b@smtp.realdsl.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060710100055.02b6c350@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <290E8874-5D7F-413B-8004-E804E4C23E34@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 10, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > Ed was presumably speaking in the context of ACBL regulations, > where one's obligations following an opponent's skip-bid are, by > regulation, unaffected by whether or not a proper warning (either > verbally or via the stop card) has been given. And if an opponent > does place the stop card on the table, one's obligations are > unaffected by when he picks it up. Primarily so, yes. From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 10 19:55:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jul 10 19:57:14 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060710092841.02b889b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > We are differing over semantics here. If I'm playing a seven-card > fit, LHO follows once, and I convince myself that the suit must have > started 3-3 or 4-2, did I think I already saw LHO discard one (a > miscount by Ed's definition), or did I just "forget" that six cards > can divide 5-1 (which I'd call a "miscount", but Ed would not)? > Should it make any difference to the ruling on my claim? Ok, consider for a moment that claimer said "OK, the ST will drop now". He's wrong, but I have clear evidence that he is aware of the "outness" of the ST. In projecting lines of play I will focus on those at which he discovers the non-droppingness of the ST at the least favourable possible moment - but I won't consider lines that involve him playing the S9 to the outstanding ST when doing so would be irrational. Declarer having said something different I will try to establish whether I have doubts as to his awareness of (and possible attention to) the ST. I find that doing this sort of thing helps me explain the number of tricks I am ruling to both sides - generally that assists in acceptance but if not accepted it helps whichever side wants to appeal to focus on the key issue. Thus: "From what has been said I am convinced that declarer was aware that the ST was out and would not have played the S9 but I also believe that because he was expecting the ST to drop he might have carelessly discarded a Diamond on the 2nd/3rd round of spades." Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 10 20:10:50 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 10 20:11:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: Message-ID: <007701c6a44c$2df5efc0$129868d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > That is NOT what you wrote before. In your > prior examples the card never left declarer's > hand. A card is either "faced on the table" > or it is in declarer's hand - it can't be > both. Thus in the examples you gave > *originally* the requirements for L45A are > clearly not met. [nige1] Tim should know that I haven't changed my example because he quoted the original... >> At his turn to play, declarer takes a card >> from his hand and sweeps it in an arc so that >> it touches the table, returning it to his hand. >> Declarer holds the card so that defenders can >> see its face but it is never stationary. Is the >> card played? [Tim] > While L45c2 isn't a model of clarity. [nige1] IMO, a slight understatement; but that is the gist of what I hoped we would all agree. [Tim] > it attempts to distinguish between cards which > touch the table momentarily in the act of > retraction and cards which the declarer keeps > near the table for long enough for his opps to > believe the card played. [nige1] This is apparent neither to many distinguished BLMLers (nor to an ordinary player like me). If the law means held stationary, then it should say so. [Tim] > There is a durational meaning to "held face up, > touching or nearly touching the table, or > maintained in such a position as.." that would > not be there if the law had been written "if a > held card touches the table, or is > maintained...". > If it helps think of the difference > between "they held hands" and "they touched hands". On RGB some argued that when you hold something, you hold it still; but "stationary" isn't a necessary part of the meaning of hold. For example, "the batmen holds the bat he wields". I take your point that "touch" (in "they touched hands" can be instantaneous; whereas "held" in they held hands implies longer contact; but it seems you may be arguing against yourself? The "maintains" clause is an alternate condition, separated by ", or). I accept that "maintains" has more connotations of stasis but... "the earth maintains an orbit round the sun". In practice, in such a cases, on identical agreed facts, different directors give different rulings. As in most BLML cases, it would be easier to simplify and to tighten up the law (one way or another) than to argue about its interpretation. IMO the interpretation problem gets worse, the more sophisticated the law; but we should start by clarifying the basics. We should learn to walk before we try to swim. [TFLB L45A] Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing [footnote: The opening lead is first made face down (unless the sponsoring organisation directs otherwise)] it on the table immediately before him. [TFLB Law 45C2] Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 10 20:47:42 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon Jul 10 20:49:23 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6a451$53df30c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > Eric wrote: > > > We are differing over semantics here. If I'm playing a seven-card > > fit, LHO follows once, and I convince myself that the suit must have > > started 3-3 or 4-2, did I think I already saw LHO discard one (a > > miscount by Ed's definition), or did I just "forget" that six cards > > can divide 5-1 (which I'd call a "miscount", but Ed would not)? > > Should it make any difference to the ruling on my claim? > > Ok, consider for a moment that claimer said "OK, the ST will drop now". > He's wrong, but I have clear evidence that he is aware of the "outness" > of the ST. In projecting lines of play I will focus on those at which > he discovers the non-droppingness of the ST at the least favourable > possible moment - but I won't consider lines that involve him playing > the S9 to the outstanding ST when doing so would be irrational. > Declarer having said something different I will try to establish whether > I have doubts as to his awareness of (and possible attention to) the ST. > > I find that doing this sort of thing helps me explain the number of > tricks I am ruling to both sides - generally that assists in acceptance > but if not accepted it helps whichever side wants to appeal to focus on > the key issue. > Thus: "From what has been said I am convinced that declarer was aware > that the ST was out and would not have played the S9 but I also believe > that because he was expecting the ST to drop he might have carelessly > discarded a Diamond on the 2nd/3rd round of spades." Exactly what "evidence" makes you convinced declarer is aware that the ST has not been discarded and is still out? Once he fails his accounting of a suit this failure can very well include forgetting that he has not seen the ten in that suit? IMO you give too much allowance to the claimer. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Jul 10 22:43:30 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon Jul 10 22:45:10 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060710092841.02b889b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060710162051.02b85350@pop.starpower.net> At 01:55 PM 7/10/06, twm wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > We are differing over semantics here. If I'm playing a seven-card > > fit, LHO follows once, and I convince myself that the suit must have > > started 3-3 or 4-2, did I think I already saw LHO discard one (a > > miscount by Ed's definition), or did I just "forget" that six cards > > can divide 5-1 (which I'd call a "miscount", but Ed would not)? > > Should it make any difference to the ruling on my claim? > >Ok, consider for a moment that claimer said "OK, the ST will drop now". >He's wrong, but I have clear evidence that he is aware of the "outness" >of the ST. In projecting lines of play I will focus on those at which >he discovers the non-droppingness of the ST at the least favourable >possible moment - but I won't consider lines that involve him playing >the S9 to the outstanding ST when doing so would be irrational. >Declarer having said something different I will try to establish whether >I have doubts as to his awareness of (and possible attention to) the ST. > >I find that doing this sort of thing helps me explain the number of >tricks I am ruling to both sides - generally that assists in acceptance >but if not accepted it helps whichever side wants to appeal to focus on >the key issue. >Thus: "From what has been said I am convinced that declarer was aware >that the ST was out and would not have played the S9 but I also believe >that because he was expecting the ST to drop he might have carelessly >discarded a Diamond on the 2nd/3rd round of spades." Sure; I'd give the same ruling. But in Tim's counter-example, declarer holds the S9, and has specifically mentioned the S10 in his claim statement. That makes it easy. But we don't care about the mention of the S10 if declarer holds AKQJ4 opposite 32, as we "allow" the hand holding the five-card suit to "falsecard" the 10 to keep the 5. The question, ISTM, is whether we need to know declarer's unrevealed thought process in order to rule on the faulty claim. If all he has told us is "five spade tricks", can we rule, or do we first need to question the claimer to find out what was in his mind, such as whether he was relying on the S10 specifically to fall, or whether he was just relying on "the break". Personally, I don't think we need to go into this, but that's been proven arguable. L70D directs us to "not accept... any unstated line", but it also tells us to restrict our presumptions to "normal line[s]". So perhaps it all comes back to our interpretation of the dreaded footnote. When someone miscounts/misreads/misremembers/miswhatevers, resulting in a bad claim, do we need to ascertain his "class of player" (or, in this case, "class of misplayer") to decide whether or not we can presume he would "wake up" to the flaw in his claim in time to adjust his line of play? My personal opinion is that we shouldn't care; we should be making the same ruling for everybody. AFAIC, any player who makes a bad claim belongs in "the class of player that makes bad claims". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 10 23:12:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jul 10 23:14:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <007701c6a44c$2df5efc0$129868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > In practice, in such a cases, on identical agreed > facts, different directors give different rulings. > As in most BLML cases, it would be easier to > simplify and to tighten up the law (one way or > another) than to argue about its interpretation. In practice in 99+% of cases declarer has followed the rules and faced a card according to L45a, in the majority of the rest of the cases the card hasn't come close enough to the cusp position to be in doubt. In the tiny fraction of remaining cases some TDs will judge the timing significant while others will not (the more experiened the TDs the less variation there will be). But it doesn't matter *what* we define that cusp position as - it could be "when detached from the rest of the hand" or "When it touches the table" - players will dispute the facts based on their impressions. The current law could be more simply written as "The card must be played when declarer has given the impression that it is the card he intends to play". It takes a bit of effort to understand the words used, but once one explains the difference between the actual "touching or nearly touching" and the words not used "touches or nearly touches" most players can understand the difference [when I say "most" I mean that you are the only one I have dealt who seems to have a problem understanding the difference]. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 10 23:12:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jul 10 23:14:28 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000001c6a451$53df30c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: > Exactly what "evidence" makes you convinced declarer is aware that > the ST has not been discarded and is still out? Perhaps the fact that I started my example with: Ok, consider for a moment that claimer said "OK, the ST will drop now". As to what evidence *would* convince me, I don't know exactly. I will merely here the words and tone of voice used by all the players describing what happened - both prior to and after the claim, I will hear the different version of what claimer thought he said and what opps thought he said. Having heard that evidence I may still have doubts, or I may not have. But actually hearing the evidence is important. > IMO you give too much allowance to the claimer. My legal obligation is to find equity. Until I hear the evidence I don't know whether I'm dealing with a careless claimer trying to recover a trick he might not have deserved or with a skanky cheat who has picked up on a slightly mispoken word in the claim and is trying to con the TD into giving him a trick he would never have made in a million years (usually it's something in between). And here's the funny thing - unless *you* hear the evidence *you* won't know either. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 11 00:23:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jul 11 00:24:48 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060710162051.02b85350@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric wrote: > > My personal opinion is that we shouldn't care; we should be making > the same ruling for everybody. AFAIC, any player who makes a bad > claim belongs in "the class of player that makes bad claims". To me it's not a matter of the footnote (ie the class of player is very seldom relevant) but of the introduction "In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." We get bad claims sometimes, but we also get "good claims" expressed poorly, or slips of the tongue in the claim statement, or misunderstandings by defenders, or skanky behaviour by one side or the other. Equity is the concept of ensuring that neither side benefits or suffers unduly compared to the number of tricks which would have been made had the hand been played out. Maybe our investigations won't resolve any "doubtful points" - but maybe they will and that's why we should both care and investigate as thoroughly as we can. Tim From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 11 05:07:51 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Jul 11 05:09:36 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules? In-Reply-To: <200607081510.k68FAqkH012189@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200607081510.k68FAqkH012189@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44B31607.6070109@cfa.harvard.edu> >>From: "Marvin French" >>>Tennis has two versions of the rules, a small >>>booklet for players and a huge one for umpires. >>From: >>+=+ In general NBOs' regulations and the >>tournament Conditions of Contest normally >>tell players all they need to know. Perhaps players should know that they are supposed to follow suit and which card wins the trick? :-) Marvin's idea has a lot of merit, in my opinion. A quick scan of the "rules for players" could give people who are interested in bridge but have never played an idea what the game is about, and it could also be an important teaching tool for newer players. It would also be useful to Directors who want to explain to players how they could have avoided a penalty or score adjustment. ("Law 5 says you should have done XXX, and Law 62 says when you do YYY instead the penalty is....") Some years ago, I sent BLML a list of which Laws I thought necessary for players to know. The idea was rearrangement, not lengthening, of the existing law book. >> It is hoped >>to have some example applications of law at >>the back of the 2007 Code. This is great. Please don't forget cross-references in the Laws themselves ("See example XX.") From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Tue Jul 11 05:13:26 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue Jul 11 05:15:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Manuela Mandache > My statement: if players systematically break the law, they cannot be allowed to > pretend they were obeying it the very single time this really matters, and take > advantage of it. While I agree with Probst for mechanical infractions, we in the ACBL have a definite problem with players who fail to pause after skip bids. Nine times out of ten they pass in a second or two; the tenth time, when they have a genuine problem, they take their "normal" ten seconds. It seems futile to complain because the infraction is so common. (It is rarer in strong fields, but most ACBL events have mixed fields these days.) Maybe I should be grateful for the information they give me on how to play the hand, but practical suggestions would be welcome. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 11 06:16:41 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jul 11 06:16:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> [Steve Willner] > ... we in the ACBL have a definite problem > with players who fail to pause after skip > bids. Nine times out of ten they pass in a > second or two; the tenth time, when they have > a genuine problem, they take their "normal" > ten seconds. It seems futile to complain because the infraction is so common. [nige1] The same often happens in EBU events. Arguably, as with other infractions, if we called the director more, the frequency would decrease. Another problem is that the law-breaker (backed up by his partner) often insists that he waited 10 seconds. Then the director must decide who is telling the truth. Even if he decides in your favour, the law-breaker almost always escapes with a warning. After the unpleasance and embarrassment, all you earn is your opponent's resentment. As a partial short-term remedy, each table could be issued with an "egg-timer" that timed about 10 seconds. When you make a stop bid, you turn over the glass. Your LHO may not bid until the sand runs through. An electronic timer would be better. Better still would to integrate the timer with an electronic bidding box which would flash or sound an alarm if an attempt was made to bid before the 10 seconds was up. IMO, the law should be changed so that, as a matter of courtesy, you could invoke the "stop" mechanism for any class of bid that might cause LHO a problem. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 11 09:29:57 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jul 11 09:31:38 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6a4bb$cfd17c50$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tim West-Meads > > Exactly what "evidence" makes you convinced declarer is aware that > > the ST has not been discarded and is still out? > > Perhaps the fact that I started my example with: Ok, consider for a > moment that claimer said "OK, the ST will drop now". That is introducing a hypothesis not in evidence. The original post (including later clarifications) stated that the claimer said (in French) words to the effect either that "the spades run" or that she had "four tricks in spade" (there were at the time of the claim four remaining spades in Dummy). The claimer made no reference to the ten of spades. > As to what evidence *would* convince me, I don't know exactly. I will > merely here the words and tone of voice used by all the players > describing what happened - both prior to and after the claim, I will > hear the different version of what claimer thought he said and what opps > thought he said. Having heard that evidence I may still have doubts, or > I may not have. But actually hearing the evidence is important. > > > IMO you give too much allowance to the claimer. > > My legal obligation is to find equity. Until I hear the evidence I > don't know whether I'm dealing with a careless claimer trying to recover > a trick he might not have deserved or with a skanky cheat who has picked > up on a slightly mispoken word in the claim and is trying to con the TD > into giving him a trick he would never have made in a million years > (usually it's something in between). And here's the funny thing - > unless *you* hear the evidence *you* won't know either. And from what _is_ in evidence (above) I tend to believe that the claimer had overlooked the missing ten of spades and must not be allowed to suddenly become aware of this mistake as a result of the claim being contested. Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 10 17:05:52 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Jul 11 10:32:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060710085547.02b7aa70@pop.starpower.net> References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707103731.02a45890@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710170027.0209cb00@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:21 10/07/2006 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >It is designated per L46B as soon as declarer gives any indication that he >wishes to play it (i.e. to play a card). Failing to object to RHO's >attempt to follow to it is probably sufficient. Turning the trick is >certainly sufficient. What will Roger do when dummy, to his right, plays >a singleton unasked, and declarer turns to him and says, "Your >turn"? Demand that declarer read off the rank and suit of the singleton >before he will play? In my club, we would call that a potential violation >of L74B4 ("prolonging play unnecessarily... for the purpose of >disconcerting an opponent"). What I would do is to remark "Sorry, I didn't hear you call the card" with the stress on "you" and a sideway glance at dummy... for the purpose of education. >The "circumstances" that make it a played card are declarer's indicating >in some manner that it is a played card. When the lead is made, dummy has >a singleton, and declarer says, "Play it," it is played, notwithstanding >that its rank and suit have not been named. A gesture with open hand, or a nod, will do. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 11 13:29:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jul 11 13:31:11 2006 Subject: [blml] claim In-Reply-To: <000001c6a4bb$cfd17c50$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven wrote: > That is introducing a hypothesis not in evidence. Of course it is. The original evidence was incomplete and thus we are forced to hypothesise about what actually happened. > The original post > (including later clarifications) stated that the claimer said (in > French) words to the effect either that "the spades run" or that she > had "four tricks in spade" (there were at the time of the claim four > remaining spades in Dummy). The claimer made no reference to the ten > of spades. Saying (in any language) "The ST will drop" is saying words *to the effect* of having 4 tricks in S, or that S will run. We have NOT heard any evidence from the claimer at all. We have heard evidence (as I understand it) solely from the claimer's opponent. Perhaps what was actually said was "Le dix pique vient" (or somesuch which sounded similar to what the opponent thought he heard). As a language French is very open to elisions, lazy speaking, variations of accent etc (perhaps in a way that Norwegian is not). > And from what _is_ in evidence (above) I tend to believe that the > claimer had overlooked the missing ten of spades Then I think you have misread the evidence. I'd have said that declarer *was* clearly aware of the fact that the ST was outstanding (his opp said that particular attention was paid to the first round of the suit) but, because he was expecting it to drop he might (just about) carelessly fail to notice that it hadn't. An explicit mention of the card would remove my doubts on that issue. > and must not be allowed to suddenly become aware of this mistake as > a result of the claim being contested. Well, if you are happy basing your rulings on one side's evidence with no investigation or corroboration and with no chance given to the other side to give their evidence so be it. Personally I don't like that approach so I continue to believe that we can only give a range of possible rulings given the range of possible facts. Indeed as I recall from the original write-up the objecting side disputed the claim without calling the TD. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 11 13:29:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jul 11 13:31:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <018b01c6a4a7$2a8fd200$039468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > > [nige1] > Many contributors to previous BLML & RGB threads > on this topic disagree with Tim's "held > stationary" interpretation. I have never said "held stationary" - a card can be held just over the table and twiddled/waved and must still be played. It's the duration "in the zone" (ie touching or nearly touching) that matters. OTOH if many people think that "held touching or nearly touching" means the same as "touches or nearly touches" I can but bemoan the quality of English tuition in whatever school they attended. Tim From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 11 14:09:34 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Jul 11 14:02:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: References: <018b01c6a4a7$2a8fd200$039468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060711140729.0209cd90@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:29 11/07/2006 +0100, you wrote: >I have never said "held stationary" - a card can be held just over the >table and twiddled/waved and must still be played. It's the duration >"in the zone" (ie touching or nearly touching) that matters. IMOBO, a card held not-so-near to the table, but placed vertically with the back turned to the player, so that everyone can see it, as I've seen some players do, expecially 4th to play when winning the trick, is played too. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 11 15:18:48 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jul 11 15:20:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060711090522.02bd3cb0@pop.starpower.net> At 12:16 AM 7/11/06, Guthrie wrote: >[Steve Willner] > > ... we in the ACBL have a definite problem > > with players who fail to pause after skip > > bids. Nine times out of ten they pass in a > > second or two; the tenth time, when they have > > a genuine problem, they take their "normal" > > ten seconds. It seems futile to complain because >the infraction is so common. > >[nige1] >The same often happens in EBU events. > >Arguably, as with other infractions, if we called >the director more, the frequency would decrease. > >Another problem is that the law-breaker (backed up >by his partner) often insists that he waited 10 >seconds. Then the director must decide who is >telling the truth. Even if he decides in your >favour, the law-breaker almost always escapes with >a warning. After the unpleasance and >embarrassment, all you earn is your opponent's >resentment. > >As a partial short-term remedy, each table could >be issued with an "egg-timer" that timed about 10 >seconds. When you make a stop bid, you turn over >the glass. Your LHO may not bid until the sand >runs through. > >An electronic timer would be better. Better still >would to integrate the timer with an electronic >bidding box which would flash or sound an alarm if >an attempt was made to bid before the 10 seconds >was up. > >IMO, the law should be changed so that, as a >matter of courtesy, you could invoke the "stop" >mechanism for any class of bid that might cause >LHO a problem. This is not a problem that can be solved with a mechanical timing device, because, despite its being a "ten-second rule", it really has very little to do with tempo. A normally fast player can give a convincing appearance of studying his hand and selecting his call from among the relevant alternatives, then physically making it, in 3-4 seconds. The next guy can spend a full 10 seconds staring at his wristwatch, or the ceiling, before making the call he was obviously waiting to make from the start. IMO, the former has acted properly whereas the latter has not. The number of seconds that elapse isn't what's important. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 11 16:27:53 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jul 11 16:29:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060710170027.0209cb00@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707103731.02a45890@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060710170027.0209cb00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> The "circumstances" that make it a played card are declarer's >> indicating in some manner that it is a played card. When the lead >> is made, dummy has a singleton, and declarer says, "Play it," it >> is played, notwithstanding that its rank and suit have not been >> named. > > A gesture with open hand, or a nod, will do. Declarer says "play". What card is played? From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 11 18:09:00 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jul 11 18:09:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: Message-ID: <000e01c6a504$52ec2de0$259468d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > I have never said "held stationary" - a card > can be held just over the table and twiddled/ > waved and must still be played. It's the > duration "in the zone" (ie touching or nearly > touching) that matters. OTOH if many people > think that "held touching or nearly touching" > means the same as "touches or nearly touches" > I can but bemoan the quality of English tuition > in whatever school they attended. [nigel] Few English speakers confuse "Held touching or nearly touching" and "touches or nearly touches". Grammatically, the first phrase appears to be an adjectival clause, the second a predicate. A difference in meaning is that "touches", on its own, does not imply being "held". We all agree that a card can be "held touching or nearly touching" the table while being moved over it. Alternatively, it can be dropped so that it "touches or nearly touches the table" From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Jul 11 18:17:06 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue Jul 11 18:24:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl><000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john><6.1.1.1.0.20060707103731.02a45890@pop.starpower.net><5.1.0.14.0.20060710170027.0209cb00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established? > > On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>> The "circumstances" that make it a played card are declarer's >>> indicating in some manner that it is a played card. When the lead is >>> made, dummy has a singleton, and declarer says, "Play it," it is >>> played, notwithstanding that its rank and suit have not been named. >> >> A gesture with open hand, or a nod, will do. > > Declarer says "play". What card is played? I am a bit concerned about which of dummy's cards declarer has designated [to be played forthwith from dummy] when he nods his head, as when it is a defender's turn, and for that matter, when it is his turn. regards roger pewick From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 11 19:19:08 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jul 11 19:20:56 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707103731.02a45890@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060710170027.0209cb00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6771CFE3-013A-4A1D-96CF-0CCB1E81EA5F@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Roger Pewick wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" > > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:27 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established? > > >> >> On Jul 10, 2006, at 11:05 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>>> The "circumstances" that make it a played card are declarer's >>>> indicating in some manner that it is a played card. When the >>>> lead is made, dummy has a singleton, and declarer says, "Play >>>> it," it is played, notwithstanding that its rank and suit have >>>> not been named. >>> >>> A gesture with open hand, or a nod, will do. >> >> Declarer says "play". What card is played? > > I am a bit concerned about which of dummy's cards declarer has > designated [to be played forthwith from dummy] when he nods his > head, as when it is a defender's turn, and for that matter, when it > is his turn. Yeah. :-) If it's a singleton, I suppose any of gesture, nod, "play it" or "play" designates the singleton - is there *any* bridge player who doesn't know you have to follow suit? OTOH, dummy has suggested a play, which is illegal, and the acquiescence, however expressed, doesn't negate the rights of the defenders - although if it's a singleton, I would not expect any penalty or adjustment. The interesting case arises when there is *not* a singleton in the led suit in dummy. Now defenders may be damaged - or be deemed to have possibly been damaged, anyway - because declarer might have played a different card without dummy's intervention. Even if dummy does not stick his oar in, any of a nod, gesture, or the single word "play" seems to me to fit Law 46B5, and now either defender may choose which card is played. Unless, of course, "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible". So, a question: QTx in dummy, A or K led. Declarer says "play". Can a defender require the play of the Q? Suppose a low spot is led instead of a top honor. How now? We have a player here who consistently says "play" when he doesn't want to bother designating which card. I'm sure that as far as he's concerned "play" is equivalent to "play low", but is it? The problem gets bigger - many of his partners have picked up the habit. I doubt any club TD around here - except me :-) - would even consider allowing a defender to choose the card, and maybe they're right. OTOH, given the number of times I've seen them be wrong, I gotta ask. :-) From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 11 19:38:32 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jul 11 19:40:19 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <6771CFE3-013A-4A1D-96CF-0CCB1E81EA5F@rochester.rr.com> References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707103731.02a45890@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060710170027.0209cb00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <6771CFE3-013A-4A1D-96CF-0CCB1E81EA5F@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060711133407.02bcdd50@pop.starpower.net> At 01:19 PM 7/11/06, Ed wrote: >If it's a singleton, I suppose any of gesture, nod, "play it" or >"play" designates the singleton - is there *any* bridge player who >doesn't know you have to follow suit? OTOH, dummy has suggested a >play, which is illegal, and the acquiescence, however expressed, >doesn't negate the rights of the defenders - although if it's a >singleton, I would not expect any penalty or adjustment. The >interesting case arises when there is *not* a singleton in the led >suit in dummy. Now defenders may be damaged - or be deemed to have >possibly been damaged, anyway - because declarer might have played a >different card without dummy's intervention. Even if dummy does not >stick his oar in, any of a nod, gesture, or the single word "play" >seems to me to fit Law 46B5, and now either defender may choose which >card is played. Unless, of course, "declarer's different intention is >incontrovertible". So, a question: QTx in dummy, A or K led. Declarer >says "play". Can a defender require the play of the Q? Suppose a low >spot is led instead of a top honor. How now? > >We have a player here who consistently says "play" when he doesn't >want to bother designating which card. I'm sure that as far as he's >concerned "play" is equivalent to "play low", but is it? The problem >gets bigger - many of his partners have picked up the habit. I doubt >any club TD around here - except me :-) - would even consider >allowing a defender to choose the card, and maybe they're right. >OTOH, given the number of times I've seen them be wrong, I gotta >ask. :-) Our local practice assumes that when dummy can follow suit, the suit to be played is "implicitly designated". So if declarer says "play" or some such, we apply L46B2, and require that the lowest card in the suit be played. If dummy can't follow suit, we apply L46B5: either defender may designate any card in the dummy to be played. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From mustikka at charter.net Tue Jul 11 20:48:39 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Tue Jul 11 20:50:27 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl><000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john><6.1.1.1.0.20060707103731.02a45890@pop.starpower.net><5.1.0.14.0.20060710170027.0209cb00@pop.ulb.ac.be><6771CFE3-013A-4A1D-96CF-0CCB1E81EA5F@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060711133407.02bcdd50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <004d01c6a51a$a0110300$f4150947@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] > At 01:19 PM 7/11/06, Ed wrote: > >>If it's a singleton, I suppose any of gesture, nod, "play it" or >>"play" designates the singleton - is there *any* bridge player who >>doesn't know you have to follow suit? OTOH, dummy has suggested a >>play, which is illegal, and the acquiescence, however expressed, >>doesn't negate the rights of the defenders - although if it's a >>singleton, I would not expect any penalty or adjustment. The >>interesting case arises when there is *not* a singleton in the led >>suit in dummy. Now defenders may be damaged - or be deemed to have >>possibly been damaged, anyway - because declarer might have played a >>different card without dummy's intervention. Even if dummy does not >>stick his oar in, any of a nod, gesture, or the single word "play" >>seems to me to fit Law 46B5, and now either defender may choose which >>card is played. Unless, of course, "declarer's different intention is >>incontrovertible". So, a question: QTx in dummy, A or K led. Declarer >>says "play". Can a defender require the play of the Q? Suppose a low >>spot is led instead of a top honor. How now? >> >>We have a player here who consistently says "play" when he doesn't >>want to bother designating which card. I'm sure that as far as he's >>concerned "play" is equivalent to "play low", but is it? The problem >>gets bigger - many of his partners have picked up the habit. I doubt >>any club TD around here - except me :-) - would even consider >>allowing a defender to choose the card, and maybe they're right. >>OTOH, given the number of times I've seen them be wrong, I gotta >>ask. :-) > > Our local practice assumes that when dummy can follow suit, the suit to be > played is "implicitly designated". So if declarer says "play" or some > such, we apply L46B2, and require that the lowest card in the suit be > played. If dummy can't follow suit, we apply L46B5: either defender may > designate any card in the dummy to be played. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 My observation is that the designation "play" is used most by eager intermediates who are fascinated to be part of a bridge community which has its Very Own Inside Lingo. They take every opportunity to talk that lingo so anyone within will hear it, using terms such as hook, jaws, stiff, and what have we. It really does not take any more effort to call the number of the card, like "nine" instead of "play"... but it just sounds so cool and marks the person clearly as an insider, eh... So let them say "play" and keep their pleasure:))) From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 12 00:39:37 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jul 12 00:41:21 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060711133407.02bcdd50@pop.starpower.net> References: <31EE243117E42C488B0F116257669F3F03E5EFD3@rea04.fmg.uva.nl> <000d01c7013a$cb569ad0$0701a8c0@john> <6.1.1.1.0.20060707103731.02a45890@pop.starpower.net> <5.1.0.14.0.20060710170027.0209cb00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <6771CFE3-013A-4A1D-96CF-0CCB1E81EA5F@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060711133407.02bcdd50@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jul 11, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > Our local practice assumes that when dummy can follow suit, the > suit to be played is "implicitly designated". So if declarer says > "play" or some such, we apply L46B2, and require that the lowest > card in the suit be played. If dummy can't follow suit, we apply > L46B5: either defender may designate any card in the dummy to be > played. Hm. I suppose that's one way to look at it - since the laws require dummy to follow suit if possible, then if there is more than one card of that suit in dummy, 46B2 would indeed probably lead you to conclude "play" must refer to the lowest card. OTOH, 46B5 makes no mention of the requirement to follow suit; one could interpret it to not apply, as your local practice has apparently done, or to apply, with the requirement that defender's choice is restricted to a legal card - i.e., one of the suit led. I suppose on balance the former is the better choice - but it seems to me this is one of those ambiguities Nigel is so hot to get rid of. :-) From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 12 02:09:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jul 12 02:10:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060711140729.0209cd90@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > > IMOBO, a card held not-so-near to the table, but placed vertically > with the back turned to the player, so that everyone can see it, as > I've seen some players do, expecially 4th to play when winning the > trick, is played too. Must be played, rather than played (the non-compliance with L45A is still an irregularity by declarer), and we would be using the "maintained" clause of L45. Slapping the card face-forward to the forehead, thrusting under the noses of each defender, putting it on top of the bidding box/already played cards rather than on the table, and, if declarer is clever enough, levitating it face up an inch above the table would all qualify for "must be played". Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 12 02:09:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jul 12 02:10:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <000e01c6a504$52ec2de0$259468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: The necessary sentence construction would be different. For example "A card must be played if, while held face up by declarer, it touches or nearly touches the table." That would cover the an arc/snatching back. It would also cover the case of a declarer who has accidentally dropped a card which has landed face up in the instant of picking it up (I guess he would have to ask someone to pick it up for him). As I hope you can now see the fact that a card is being held, and face up, and touching the table is not sufficient. If describing (in normal English) the various actions we would say things like "Declarer is moving the card towards the table", "He is taking the card away from the table", "He is picking up a card from the table". Tim From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 12 09:04:17 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jul 12 09:05:58 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c6a581$64034d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > On Jul 11, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > > > Our local practice assumes that when dummy can follow suit, the > > suit to be played is "implicitly designated". So if declarer says > > "play" or some such, we apply L46B2, and require that the lowest > > card in the suit be played. If dummy can't follow suit, we apply > > L46B5: either defender may designate any card in the dummy to be > > played. > > Hm. I suppose that's one way to look at it - since the laws require > dummy to follow suit if possible, then if there is more than one card > of that suit in dummy, 46B2 would indeed probably lead you to > conclude "play" must refer to the lowest card. OTOH, 46B5 makes no > mention of the requirement to follow suit; one could interpret it to > not apply, as your local practice has apparently done, or to apply, > with the requirement that defender's choice is restricted to a legal > card - i.e., one of the suit led. I suppose on balance the former is > the better choice - but it seems to me this is one of those > ambiguities Nigel is so hot to get rid of. :-) You should take a look at law 44C and in particular the last sentence in this law. There is no ambiguity about the obligation to follow suit, including declarer's duty to follow suit when playing from Dummy. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 12 15:29:02 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jul 12 15:30:45 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <000201c6a581$64034d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <000201c6a581$64034d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 12, 2006, at 3:04 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > There is no ambiguity about the obligation to follow suit, including > declarer's duty to follow suit when playing from Dummy. Of course not. The ambiguity is in whether, when declarer simply nods or waves his hand or says "play" the situation falls under 46B2 or 46B5. Consider that while it is true that declarer is required to follow suit, it is certainly possible for him to designate a card *not* in the suit led ("3 of spades, please" on a heart lead, for example). Yes he will be required to correct it , quite often without the assistance of a director, but that's not my point - which is simply that when declarer says nothing about which suit or which rank to play, we have a law that clearly deals with that situation (46B5). We do *not* have a law that says that when dummy can follow suit that in itself constitutes an implicit designation of the required suit. Put it another way: since the laws are mute, if we can infer that Law 44C means that there is an implicit designation of the required suit, we can equally infer that it means that when no suit or rank is designated, defender's choice of card under Law 46B5 is limited to cards of the required suit. From a practical standpoint, 46B2 is certainly less likely to annoy declarer, and still to be acceptable to most defenders ("I don't want to win that way", they might say). OTOH, if you want players to learn to follow Law 46A, a 46B5 ruling is certainly more likely to do that than a 46B2 ruling. The majority of club level directors with whom I'm familiar seem to adhere to a "don't rock the boat" philosophy, so I suppose they would choose the former approach. That doesn't make their approach right, or the latter approach wrong, though. The only thing that can do that, IMO, is a clarification from the lawmakers. I don't own a club, btw. So when I direct, I'm working for someone who does - and when as SO they tell me "don't rock the boat" I rule under 46B2. But I'm not convinced the law alone requires it. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 12 15:31:06 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 12 15:34:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c6a504$52ec2de0$259468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060712090817.02b4ead0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:09 PM 7/11/06, twm wrote: >The necessary sentence construction would be different. For example "A >card must be played if, while held face up by declarer, it touches or >nearly touches the table." That would cover the an arc/snatching back. >It would also cover the case of a declarer who has accidentally dropped >a card which has landed face up in the instant of picking it up (I guess >he would have to ask someone to pick it up for him). > >As I hope you can now see the fact that a card is being held, and face >up, and touching the table is not sufficient. > >If describing (in normal English) the various actions we would say >things like "Declarer is moving the card towards the table", "He is >taking the card away from the table", "He is picking up a card from the >table". I think we may be over-parsing the first clause of L45C2 rather than considering the second, which is, or at least should be, determinative. Perhaps L45C2 would be clearer if we reversed them: "Declarer must play a card from his hand maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played, such as held face up touching or nearly touching the table." Grammatical trivia: I, and, ISTM, everyone who has been commenting in this thread, all read L45C2 as pertaining to a card "held face up touching or nearly touching the table"; I have done so in my rephrasing above. But that's not what it says. The comma after "up", which we're all assuming to be an error, transforms the meaning to, "Declarer must play a card held face up, or a card touching or nearly touching the table, or a card maintained in such a position..." If we're correct in our understanding of the intent, the comma should be removed even if the law is left otherwise unchanged. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 12 16:17:10 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jul 12 16:18:52 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > Sent: 12. juli 2006 15:29 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] > > > On Jul 12, 2006, at 3:04 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > There is no ambiguity about the obligation to follow suit, including > > declarer's duty to follow suit when playing from Dummy. > > Of course not. The ambiguity is in whether, when declarer simply nods > or waves his hand or says "play" the situation falls under 46B2 or > 46B5. Consider that while it is true that declarer is required to > follow suit, it is certainly possible for him to designate a card > *not* in the suit led ("3 of spades, please" on a heart lead, for > example). Yes he will be required to correct it , quite often without > the assistance of a director, but that's not my point - which is > simply that when declarer says nothing about which suit or which rank > to play, we have a law that clearly deals with that situation (46B5). > We do *not* have a law that says that when dummy can follow suit that > in itself constitutes an implicit designation of the required suit. > > Put it another way: since the laws are mute, if we can infer that Law > 44C means that there is an implicit designation of the required suit, > we can equally infer that it means that when no suit or rank is > designated, defender's choice of card under Law 46B5 is limited to > cards of the required suit. > > From a practical standpoint, 46B2 is certainly less likely to annoy > declarer, and still to be acceptable to most defenders ("I don't want > to win that way", they might say). OTOH, if you want players to learn > to follow Law 46A, a 46B5 ruling is certainly more likely to do that > than a 46B2 ruling. The majority of club level directors with whom > I'm familiar seem to adhere to a "don't rock the boat" philosophy, so > I suppose they would choose the former approach. That doesn't make > their approach right, or the latter approach wrong, though. The only > thing that can do that, IMO, is a clarification from the lawmakers. > > I don't own a club, btw. So when I direct, I'm working for someone > who does - and when as SO they tell me "don't rock the boat" I rule > under 46B2. But I'm not convinced the law alone requires it. > If there is no choice of suit then the distinction between L46B2 and L46B5 is immaterial. If there is a choice (like when Dummy is on the lead or when Dummy is void in the suit led) then the appropriate law is L46B5. WTP? Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 12 17:12:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jul 12 17:13:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <001a01c6a5a8$5b71a0e0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: John wrote: > > Must be played, rather than played (the non-compliance with L45A is > > still an irregularity by declarer), and we would be using the > > "maintained" clause of L45. Slapping the card face-forward to the > > forehead, > > Strongly disagree with this. If I'm playing in 4SX, I will have stuck > the S8 to my forehead before the opening lead. There is no suggestion > it has been played. If you did it before the opening lead I'd agree (I don't think you were attempting to make an opening lead so it's just a card exposed during the auction). If you did it at your turn to play from hand (the situation under discussion) then tough - you have chosen the wrong moment to play silly buggers and you are going to have to play that card. The suggestion that a card will be played is one of context as well as action - for example if you swish the SAKQJT down and hold them above the table saying "150 honours" there is no suggestion that any of those cards are intended for the current trick. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 12 17:18:39 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 12 17:21:46 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> References: <63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com> <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060712110951.02b45220@pop.starpower.net> At 10:17 AM 7/12/06, Sven wrote: > > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert > > > > On Jul 12, 2006, at 3:04 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > There is no ambiguity about the obligation to follow suit, including > > > declarer's duty to follow suit when playing from Dummy. > > > > Of course not. The ambiguity is in whether, when declarer simply nods > > or waves his hand or says "play" the situation falls under 46B2 or > > 46B5. Consider that while it is true that declarer is required to > > follow suit, it is certainly possible for him to designate a card > > *not* in the suit led ("3 of spades, please" on a heart lead, for > > example). Yes he will be required to correct it , quite often without > > the assistance of a director, but that's not my point - which is > > simply that when declarer says nothing about which suit or which rank > > to play, we have a law that clearly deals with that situation (46B5). > > We do *not* have a law that says that when dummy can follow suit that > > in itself constitutes an implicit designation of the required suit. > > > > Put it another way: since the laws are mute, if we can infer that Law > > 44C means that there is an implicit designation of the required suit, > > we can equally infer that it means that when no suit or rank is > > designated, defender's choice of card under Law 46B5 is limited to > > cards of the required suit. > > > > From a practical standpoint, 46B2 is certainly less likely to annoy > > declarer, and still to be acceptable to most defenders ("I don't want > > to win that way", they might say). OTOH, if you want players to learn > > to follow Law 46A, a 46B5 ruling is certainly more likely to do that > > than a 46B2 ruling. The majority of club level directors with whom > > I'm familiar seem to adhere to a "don't rock the boat" philosophy, so > > I suppose they would choose the former approach. That doesn't make > > their approach right, or the latter approach wrong, though. The only > > thing that can do that, IMO, is a clarification from the lawmakers. > > > > I don't own a club, btw. So when I direct, I'm working for someone > > who does - and when as SO they tell me "don't rock the boat" I rule > > under 46B2. But I'm not convinced the law alone requires it. > >If there is no choice of suit then the distinction between L46B2 and L46B5 >is immaterial. If there is a choice (like when Dummy is on the lead or >when >Dummy is void in the suit led) then the appropriate law is L46B5. WTP? The distinction is quite real. Dummy holds, say, K103 in the suit led, and declarer says "play". If we apply L46B2, he must play the 3. If we apply L46B5, either defender may require him to play the K or the 10 instead. I think Ed is right that the current laws can be read to justify either practice. And also right to suggest that the L46B2 interpretation seems more natural to the customers. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 13 10:07:11 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Jul 13 09:59:58 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com> References: <000201c6a581$64034d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000201c6a581$64034d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060713100129.02744130@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:29 12/07/2006 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >Of course not. The ambiguity is in whether, when declarer simply nods >or waves his hand or says "play" the situation falls under 46B2 or >46B5. Consider that while it is true that declarer is required to >follow suit, it is certainly possible for him to designate a card >*not* in the suit led ("3 of spades, please" on a heart lead, for >example). Yes he will be required to correct it A curious case happened some years ago. Declarer played two rounds of spades, ending in hand, then a third round and said "ruff". Which was slightly problematic, as the contract happened to be 2NT. Now we had to consider whether he had called for the suit on dummy's right (diamonds) and had to discard a small card of that suit. We decided he hadn't. But suppose he had said "ruff" while pointing a finger on the D2. Is that card played, notwithstanding that it isn't a ruff ? Since he was performing an "elimination play", defense cashed 3 rounds of spades, which resulted in a cold bottom anyway. Regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 13 10:09:38 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Jul 13 10:02:15 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060712110951.02b45220@pop.starpower.net> References: <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> <63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com> <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060713100804.02762290@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:18 12/07/2006 -0400, you wrote: >The distinction is quite real. Dummy holds, say, K103 in the suit led, >and declarer says "play". If we apply L46B2, he must play the 3. If we >apply L46B5, either defender may require him to play the K or the 10 instead. > >I think Ed is right that the current laws can be read to justify either >practice. And also right to suggest that the L46B2 interpretation seems >more natural to the customers. Especially in Belgium, where many players systematically use "plum" for "small plum" without it being considered by anyone as an incomplete designation. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 13 11:28:37 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Jul 13 11:21:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060713112403.02763680@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 05:16 11/07/2006 +0100, Guthrie wrote: >IMO, the law should be changed so that, as a >matter of courtesy, you could invoke the "stop" >mechanism for any class of bid that might cause >LHO a problem. We tried this in a club, and it doesn't work. People will convey (voluntarily or not) information that they think opps could have a problem. They will rather signal stop when their hand is strong than when it is weak, when the bid is artificial than when it is natural (like in long/short overcalls of 1NT or a strong club). It might even remember partner that the bid is conventional. At least, the fact that a bid is skipping a level is objective, and if there is a pattern (voluntary or not) in the use/nonuse of stop, it will be easy to check. Regards Alain From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Jul 13 12:00:27 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Thu Jul 13 12:02:26 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060713100129.02744130@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000201c6a581$64034d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000201c6a581$64034d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20060713100129.02744130@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <13c7b35c593e471fa7621cc55e751f58@smtp.realdsl.be> Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 04:41 AM Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] At 09:29 12/07/2006 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >Of course not. The ambiguity is in whether, when declarer simply nods >or waves his hand or says "play" the situation falls under 46B2 or >46B5. Consider that while it is true that declarer is required to >follow suit, it is certainly possible for him to designate a card >*not* in the suit led ("3 of spades, please" on a heart lead, for >example). Yes he will be required to correct it A curious case happened some years ago. Declarer played two rounds of spades, ending in hand, then a third round and said "ruff". Which was slightly problematic, as the contract happened to be 2NT. Now we had to consider whether he had called for the suit on dummy's right (diamonds) and had to discard a small card of that suit. We decided he hadn't. But suppose he had said "ruff" while pointing a finger on the D2. Is that card played, notwithstanding that it isn't a ruff ? Since he was performing an "elimination play", defense cashed 3 rounds of spades, which resulted in a cold bottom anyway. Regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Jul 13 12:07:15 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Thu Jul 13 12:09:02 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060713100129.02744130@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <000201c6a581$64034d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <000201c6a581$64034d20$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20060713100129.02744130@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: By saying "ruff", declarer has unquestionably indicated a particular suit, if not a rank. It does not matter that the word "ruff" is not a valid indication of a suit, neither is "koekes", or any word in a language different than the official one of the tournament. There might be some doubt as to which suit declarer mistakenly thought was trumps, but I think we can almost always be certain which one he intended. That settles the case for L46B2. As to the preambul of L46B, declarer cannot fall back on his different intention: his intention was clearly to play a (diamond) to this trick, expecting to win it with that. Too bad. So I believe Alain's ruling at the time was wrong. Declarer had indicated a particular suit (diamonds) and has to be stuck with that discard. Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be AG: A curious case happened some years ago. Declarer played two rounds of spades, ending in hand, then a third round and said "ruff". Which was slightly problematic, as the contract happened to be 2NT. Now we had to consider whether he had called for the suit on dummy's right (diamonds) and had to discard a small card of that suit. We decided he hadn't. But suppose he had said "ruff" while pointing a finger on the D2. Is that card played, notwithstanding that it isn't a ruff ? Since he was performing an "elimination play", defense cashed 3 rounds of spades, which resulted in a cold bottom anyway. Regards Alain PS: sorry about the empty post, this program works differently than the one I am used to - after blml does not only complete the address, but also sends the (still empty) mail. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 13 12:15:12 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jul 13 12:16:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060713112403.02763680@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c6a665$3ac2a3e0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > At 05:16 11/07/2006 +0100, Guthrie wrote: > > >IMO, the law should be changed so that, as a > >matter of courtesy, you could invoke the "stop" > >mechanism for any class of bid that might cause > >LHO a problem. > > We tried this in a club, and it doesn't work. People will convey > (voluntarily or not) information that they think opps could have a > problem. > They will rather signal stop when their hand is strong than when it is > weak, when the bid is artificial than when it is natural (like in > long/short overcalls of 1NT or a strong club). It might even remember > partner that the bid is conventional. > > At least, the fact that a bid is skipping a level is objective, and if > there is a pattern (voluntary or not) in the use/nonuse of stop, it will > be easy to check. The original regulation on "STOP" in Norway included the mandatory use of STOP with an opening bid in 1NT which could be weaker than (I believe it was) 15HCP. The Norwegian Bridge Federation Secretary General told me later that they had to abandon this rule because some clubs soon developed a new "convention": "STOP" 1NT was 12-14 while 1NT without stop was 15-17! And as he said: It proved impossible to make them understand that this was abuse of the STOP system! Regards Sven From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 13 13:16:07 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jul 13 13:16:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.0.20060713112403.02763680@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00d501c6a66d$bde6bf60$0e9868d5@jeushtlj> {Alain Gottcheiner] > We tried this in a club [invoking the "stop" > mechanism for any class of bid that might cause > LHO a problem] and it doesn't work. People will > convey (voluntarily or not) information that they > think opps could have a problem. They will > rather signal stop when their hand is strong > than when it is weak, when the bid is > artificial than when it is natural (like in > long/short overcalls of 1NT or a strong club). > It might even remind partner that the bid is > conventional. At least, the fact that a bid is > skipping a level is objective, and if > there is a pattern (voluntary or not) in the > use/nonuse of stop, it will be easy to check. [nige1] OK Alain. I fully accept your criticism. Thank you for relating your practical experience that so clearly demonstrates the flaws in the suggestion (which, anyway, suffered from the additional drawback that it added subjectivity and complexity). From adam at tameware.com Thu Jul 13 16:52:15 2006 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu Jul 13 16:55:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: No technology is necessary beyond the bidding boxes we already have. The WBF regulations address this well. They are never used nowadays, though, since as far as I know all WBF events use screen. Please see my proposal that the ACBL should use the WBF technique: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html -- Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 13 18:00:59 2006 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu Jul 13 18:02:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu><44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu><018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Guthrie" Cc: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Skip bids > No technology is necessary beyond the bidding boxes we already have. The > WBF regulations address this well. They are never used nowadays, though, > since as far as I know all WBF events use screen. > > Please see my proposal that the ACBL should use the WBF technique: > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html > Adam Wildavsky adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com I think it is germane to consider whether contestants are bridge players or children. The general principle being that people who are treated as children behave as children. Therefore, if it desired to treat contestants as children a good way to do so is to use the WBF stop card. In that way an additional set games are created: did you or did you not follow the rule? It goes like this- if a player did not leave the SC out long enough he has been caught. Of course, in order to be able to reliably make the assertion the player will need to be paying attention to what the skip bidder is doing. And doing so he [a] is therefore not doing the thinking he has been allotted to do or [b] is not doing his thinking as well as he might. Another game is watching the SC just in case it is picked up early in order to not take too much time. And in that case the player is spending his time as described in [a] and [b] above. Another game is catch the player bidding early or late. And in that case the player again is spending his time as described in [a] and [b] above. Then there is is the game of how can I tell partner what I have by the way I play the SC. And not to be forgotten is the game that started it all- 'did not'-'did too' only the there are two alleged innocent infractors involved instead of one. regards roger pewick From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 13 18:41:44 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jul 13 18:42:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu><44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu><018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002901c6a69b$3a993a60$249468d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Wildavsky] > No technology is necessary beyond the bidding boxes > we already have. The WBF regulations address this > well. They are never used nowadays, though, since > as far as I know all WBF events use screen. > Please see my proposal that the ACBL should use > the WBF technique: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card .html [nige1] The EBU has similar rules. There are minor quibbles especially over estinating 10 seconds, which a simple timing mechanism would cure. This is the kind of WBF rule which should be part of the law-book rather than a separate regulation. Like most laws it need not be binding on local legislations. Then the ACBL would feel less need to cobble together some idiosyncratic local fudge -- although it would not prevent it from so-doing if it felt especially chauvinistic. By the way, Adam, in another thread you asked how we could check whether new laws improved on the old. I suggested 3 obvious ways... [1] Ask players to rate them both against various criteria. [2] To provide formal tests for subjects (directors, players, non-players). Each test would specify various Bridge scenarios (from basic infractions to complex appeal ruilings) and ask for rulings according to the new rules. The resulting rulings could be assessed for consistency and whether they accord with the law-maker's intientions. [3] The WBF could farm out different suggestions for assessment by different local legislatures, who would as rigorous an experiment as possible, including tests and so on. The WFLC could collate the results. [4] The WBFLC could immediately publish an interim web version, improving the structure but just correcting the more obvious anomalies. Over the course of the next year or so they could incorporate feedback and the fruits of their investigations in a series of monthly web editions. From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 13 19:47:34 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Jul 13 19:49:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu><44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu><018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <002901c6a69b$3a993a60$249468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <002e01c6a6a4$6bfdcb80$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Skip bids > [Adam Wildavsky] >> No technology is necessary beyond the bidding > boxes >> we already have. The WBF regulations address > this >> well. They are never used nowadays, though, > since >> as far as I know all WBF events use screen. >> Please see my proposal that the ACBL should use >> the WBF technique: > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card > .html > > [nige1] > The EBU has similar rules. There are minor > quibbles especially over estinating 10 seconds, > which a simple timing mechanism would cure. there is a case for chess clocks in chess. Bridge clocks in bridge is ridiculous. Given the problems we get using the STOP card correctly (and if we did we wouldn't even be having this conversation) HTF do you expect players to use clocks correctly? Some days you want simplification; other days you want arcane complexity. Sheesh! John > > This is the kind of WBF rule which should be part > of the law-book rather than a separate regulation. > Like most laws it need not be binding on local > legislations. Then the ACBL would feel less need > to cobble together some idiosyncratic local > fudge -- although it would not prevent it from > so-doing if it felt especially chauvinistic. > > By the way, Adam, in another thread you asked how > we could check whether new laws improved on the > old. > I suggested 3 obvious ways... > [1] Ask players to rate them both against various > criteria. > [2] To provide formal tests for subjects > (directors, players, non-players). Each test would > specify various Bridge scenarios (from basic > infractions to complex appeal ruilings) and ask > for rulings according to the new rules. The > resulting rulings > could be assessed for consistency and whether they > accord with the law-maker's intientions. > [3] The WBF could farm out different suggestions > for assessment by different local legislatures, > who would as rigorous an experiment as possible, > including tests and so on. The WFLC could collate > the results. > [4] The WBFLC could immediately publish an interim > web version, improving the structure but just > correcting the more obvious anomalies. Over the > course of the next year or so they could > incorporate feedback and the fruits of their > investigations in a series of monthly web > editions. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jul 14 01:33:33 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Jul 14 01:34:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu><44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu><018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <002901c6a69b$3a993a60$249468d5@jeushtlj> <002e01c6a6a4$6bfdcb80$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <002001c6a6d4$c26033c0$099868d5@jeushtlj> [John Probst] > there is a case for chess clocks in chess. > Bridge clocks in bridge is ridiculous. > Given the problems we get using the STOP > card correctly (and if we did we wouldn't > even be having this conversation) HTF do you > expect players to use clocks correctly? Some > days you want simplification; other days you > want arcane complexity. Sheesh! John [nige1] Suppose each table had a ten second "egg-timer" (for example an "hour"-glass enough sand to run through in about 10 seconds). After making a "skip-bid", instead of facing a card, you would turn over the glass. IMO the latter is simpler because nobody then has to estimate 10 seconds. To call in tempo, the next player must call as soon as the 10 seconds are up. Quite soon, I guess that we will replace the 4 bidding boxes on each table, with 1 electronic bidding box, which records the auction (and times) and transmits the result of each board to a central scoring computer. When that happens, stop rules and timings can be programmed into the electronic bidding box. Such solutions are no panacea; problems will remain and such gadgets introduce new problems; but IMO, there is a net gain. In a way, John is right that all this is more complex: in the same way that modern computer scoring is more complex than old manual scoring: or that sending emails is more complex than sending smoke signals. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 14 10:04:39 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Jul 14 09:57:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: References: <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060714100015.0275acf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:52 13/07/2006 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >No technology is necessary beyond the bidding boxes we already have. The >WBF regulations address this well. They are never used nowadays, though, >since as far as I know all WBF events use screen. > >Please see my proposal that the ACBL should use the WBF technique: > > http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html This is of course excellent procedure, if followed properly. It is the suggested procedure in Belgium. But its drabback is the same as for other suggestions that have been made here : the player using the Stop card will be influenced by his hand or the meaning of the bid, letting the Stop card lie on the table a long or short time. And this will transmit UI. From ciska.zuur at planet.nl Fri Jul 14 11:42:03 2006 From: ciska.zuur at planet.nl (ciska zuur) Date: Fri Jul 14 11:44:33 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] References: <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> <63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com> <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20060713100804.02762290@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <01fa01c6a729$c3763700$0201a8c0@laptop> Ciska: I dont think that it is only 'more natural to the customers' to use L42B2. The example given in L 42B5 makes clear what is meant in that para: 'do something, I don't mind'. That's different from 'play' what is something like 'yes', or a nod. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Eric Landau" ; Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:09 AM Subject: RE: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] > At 11:18 12/07/2006 -0400, you wrote: > >>The distinction is quite real. Dummy holds, say, K103 in the suit led, >>and declarer says "play". If we apply L46B2, he must play the 3. If we >>apply L46B5, either defender may require him to play the K or the 10 >>instead. >> >>I think Ed is right that the current laws can be read to justify either >>practice. And also right to suggest that the L46B2 interpretation seems >>more natural to the customers. > > Especially in Belgium, where many players systematically use "plum" for > "small plum" without it being considered by anyone as an incomplete > designation. > > > > From john at asimere.com Fri Jul 14 15:32:46 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Fri Jul 14 15:34:20 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] References: <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP><63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com><000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP><5.1.0.14.0.20060713100804.02762290@pop.ulb.ac.be> <01fa01c6a729$c3763700$0201a8c0@laptop> Message-ID: <001701c6a749$fe5f56b0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ciska zuur" To: "Alain Gottcheiner" ; "Eric Landau" ; Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] > Ciska: > I dont think that it is only 'more natural to the customers' to use L42B2. > The example given in L 42B5 makes clear what is meant in that para: 'do > something, I don't mind'. > That's different from 'play' what is something like 'yes', or a nod. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Eric Landau" ; > Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:09 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] > > >> At 11:18 12/07/2006 -0400, you wrote: >> >>>The distinction is quite real. Dummy holds, say, K103 in the suit led, >>>and declarer says "play". If we apply L46B2, he must play the 3. If we >>>apply L46B5, either defender may require him to play the K or the 10 >>>instead. Hmm. "Play" "Plum"."Hippogriff" /nod/ /wave/ /shrug/. Who cares? The intention is incontrovertible. To use "play" means "Play a legal card" That is obvious. If there's a card available in the suit lead then it is clear that the smallest one *is* designated. If there's no card in the suit, then clearly the opponents can choose. No other possible interpretation Another hurricane in a thimble, this one. cheers john >>> >>>I think Ed is right that the current laws can be read to justify either >>>practice. And also right to suggest that the L46B2 interpretation seems >>>more natural to the customers. >> >> Especially in Belgium, where many players systematically use "plum" for >> "small plum" without it being considered by anyone as an incomplete >> designation. >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 14 20:37:03 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jul 14 20:38:51 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <001701c6a749$fe5f56b0$0701a8c0@john> References: <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> <63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com> <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20060713100804.02762290@pop.ulb.ac.be> <01fa01c6a729$c3763700$0201a8c0@laptop> <001701c6a749$fe5f56b0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <1A3E77B3-47DC-4477-8D96-27C39B499563@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:32 AM, John Probst wrote: > If there's a card available in the suit lead then it is clear that the > smallest one *is* designated. If there's no card in the suit, then > clearly > the opponents can choose. No other possible interpretation > > Another hurricane in a thimble, this one. cheers john Oh, I agree - *if* your unproven assertion that there is no other possible interpretation is correct. Problem is, I'm not convinced you're right - and I have given, I think, an argument which shows that other interpretations may be correct. From john at asimere.com Sat Jul 15 09:20:52 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat Jul 15 09:22:27 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] References: <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP><63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com><000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP><5.1.0.14.0.20060713100804.02762290@pop.ulb.ac.be><01fa01c6a729$c3763700$0201a8c0@laptop><001701c6a749$fe5f56b0$0701a8c0@john> <1A3E77B3-47DC-4477-8D96-27C39B499563@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <001301c6a7df$34a91680$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 7:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] > > On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:32 AM, John Probst wrote: A player may not knowingly break the laws. "Play" therefore incontrovertibly means "Play a legal card". Playing a card from a suit where no designation is made is defined as play the smallest by law (unless incontrovertible etc) and is not in the gift of the opponents. The whole practice of saying "spade" to mean "small spade" is based on this. We have discussed this before here and are clear about this point.Where no card is available in the suit, then we have indicated we are happy to "play anything" and now the opponents can choose. We can indicate our wish to "play" in many ways as I suggested in my original post, including a gesture. I cannot see any basis for interpreting the law any other way. John > >> If there's a card available in the suit lead then it is clear that the >> smallest one *is* designated. If there's no card in the suit, then >> clearly >> the opponents can choose. No other possible interpretation >> >> Another hurricane in a thimble, this one. cheers john > > > Oh, I agree - *if* your unproven assertion that there is no other > possible interpretation is correct. Problem is, I'm not convinced you're > right - and I have given, I think, an argument which shows that other > interpretations may be correct. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sat Jul 15 10:06:57 2006 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sat Jul 15 10:08:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Automatic filter Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20060715180441.06eaa1f0@mail.optusnet.com.au> My email program has started putting all of T W-M's posting straight into "Junk". (Actually it seems to have been doing it for a while - but then it also puts stuff from my financial advisor into the same bin) Is this good or bad, Tony (Sydney) From svenpran at online.no Sat Jul 15 12:06:05 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat Jul 15 12:07:48 2006 Subject: [blml] Automatic filter In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20060715180441.06eaa1f0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000501c6a7f6$48fc1030$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Tony Musgrove > My email program has started putting all of > T W-M's posting straight into "Junk". > > (Actually it seems to have been doing it for > a while - but then it also puts stuff from > my financial advisor into the same bin) > > Is this good or bad, Neither, it is what you must expect from time to time. A very likely reason is that in this world of dynamic IP addresses (which most of us have!) there is a certain possibility for the IP address which is given by a DHCP service to be the same address that has recently (and correctly) been registered by some surveillance service as being abused. Until the abuse registration "times out" and is dropped again from the abuse database most email surveillance programs will now flag all emails from this IP address as being suspect. Regards Sven From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Sat Jul 15 17:06:25 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sat Jul 15 17:08:15 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] In-Reply-To: <001301c6a7df$34a91680$0701a8c0@john> References: <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> <63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com> <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20060713100804.02762290@pop.ulb.ac.be> <01fa01c6a729$c3763700$0201a8c0@laptop> <001701c6a749$fe5f56b0$0701a8c0@john> <1A3E77B3-47DC-4477-8D96-27C39B499563@rochester.rr.com> <001301c6a7df$34a91680$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <574DDE8C-0A70-4231-8B0B-69EC55FA4B1E@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 15, 2006, at 3:20 AM, John Probst wrote: > A player may not knowingly break the laws. "Play" therefore > incontrovertibly > means "Play a legal card". That first sentence is incontrovertibly true, :-) but you can't know what's in declarer's mind. When he says "play", is he aware of which suit has been led, and that there are cards of that suit in dummy, or is he having some kind of "senior moment" and is not so aware? So I object to "incontrovertibly" in the second sentence. OTOH, as a practical matter, I accept that we should rule that "play" means "play a legal card" - we are possibly allowing the declarer a free error, but I don't suppose the probability of it is all that great. From john at asimere.com Sat Jul 15 20:15:11 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Sat Jul 15 20:16:45 2006 Subject: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] References: <000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP><63A62C88-75D2-49B3-A68B-5A0DB97CC413@rochester.rr.com><000801c6a5bd$dd3a1110$6400a8c0@WINXP><5.1.0.14.0.20060713100804.02762290@pop.ulb.ac.be><01fa01c6a729$c3763700$0201a8c0@laptop><001701c6a749$fe5f56b0$0701a8c0@john><1A3E77B3-47DC-4477-8D96-27C39B499563@rochester.rr.com><001301c6a7df$34a91680$0701a8c0@john> <574DDE8C-0A70-4231-8B0B-69EC55FA4B1E@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c6a83a$9ccd2f20$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "John Probst" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] play from dummy [was Revoke established?] > > On Jul 15, 2006, at 3:20 AM, John Probst wrote: > >> A player may not knowingly break the laws. "Play" therefore >> incontrovertibly >> means "Play a legal card". > > That first sentence is incontrovertibly true, :-) but you can't know > what's in declarer's mind. When he says "play", is he aware of which suit > has been led, and that there are cards of that suit in dummy, or is he > having some kind of "senior moment" and is not so aware? So I object to > "incontrovertibly" in the second sentence. OTOH, as a practical matter, I > accept that we should rule that "play" means "play a legal card" - we are > possibly allowing the declarer a free error, but I don't suppose the > probability of it is all that great. Yep, that's ok. I accept your point. just as we allow a claim to be error free in terms of mechanical matters. Well argued though. I had to get up to speed on this one :) john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 16 06:04:16 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jul 16 06:14:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <000e01c6a504$52ec2de0$259468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060712090817.02b4ead0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000f01c6a88d$04e59e10$df9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- +=+ A good starting point may be the dictionary. "Hold" = 'keep or sustain in a specified position'. The commas before and after 'touching or nearly touching the table' indicate it to be a qualification of 'held face up'; I disagree with Eric's assertion as to the effect of the comma. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ---------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] > > Grammatical trivia: I, and, ISTM, everyone > who has been commenting in this thread, all > read L45C2 as pertaining to a card "held face up > touching or nearly touching the table"; I have > done so in my rephrasing above. But that's not > what it says. The comma after "up", which we're > all assuming to be an error, transforms the > meaning to, "Declarer must play a card held > face up, or a card touching or nearly touching > the table, or a card maintained in such a position..." > If we're correct in our understanding of the intent, > the comma should be removed even if the law is > left otherwise unchanged. > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 16 09:07:34 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Jul 16 09:08:05 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <000e01c6a504$52ec2de0$259468d5@jeushtlj><6.1.1.1.0.20060712090817.02b4ead0@pop.starpower.net> <000f01c6a88d$04e59e10$df9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001801c6a8a6$849a9ac0$029468d5@jeushtlj> > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ A good starting point may be the dictionary. > "Hold" = 'keep or sustain in a specified > position'. [nige1] Another dictionary meaning is... "Hold" = 'have or hold in one's hands or grip' Example: "Hold the club in your left hand" This primary meaning seem more apt, in context. Thus, many interpret the first part of the law as meaning that the card should be moved towards the table while being held, rather than accidentally dropped. (See previous discussions in BLML and RGB). FWIW, the online etymological dictionary gives the original meaning as "to keep, tend, watch over" (as cattle), later "to have." IMO, whatever the law-makers intended this law to mean, it would benefit from clarification and simplification. From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jul 16 10:47:02 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Sun Jul 16 13:15:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <000e01c6a504$52ec2de0$259468d5@jeushtlj><6.1.1.1.0.20060712090817.02b4ead0@pop.starpower.net><000f01c6a88d$04e59e10$df9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <001801c6a8a6$849a9ac0$029468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000001c6a8c9$47ca2200$94a6403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 8:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] >> [Grattan Endicott] >> +=+ A good starting point may be the dictionary. >> "Hold" = 'keep or sustain in a specified >> position'. > > [nige1] > Another dictionary meaning is... > > "Hold" = 'have or hold in one's hands or grip' > > Example: "Hold the club in your left hand" > > This primary meaning seem more apt, in context. > Thus, many interpret the first part of the law as > meaning that the card should be moved towards the > table while being held, rather than accidentally > dropped. (See previous discussions in BLML and > RGB). > +=+ A position is specified. Nigel's suggested interpretation is incongruous. ~ G ~ +=+ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sun Jul 16 15:46:24 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sun Jul 16 15:46:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <000e01c6a504$52ec2de0$259468d5@jeushtlj><6.1.1.1.0.20060712090817.02b4ead0@pop.starpower.net><000f01c6a88d$04e59e10$df9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><001801c6a8a6$849a9ac0$029468d5@jeushtlj> <000001c6a8c9$47ca2200$94a6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <004701c6a8de$3b33e2a0$029468d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ A position is specified. Nigel's suggested > interpretation is incongruous. ~ G ~ +=+ [L45C2 - Grattan's version] Declarer must play a card from his hand *sustained* face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. [L45C2 - Alternative version] Declarer must play a card from his hand *gripped* face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. [nigel] Neither exactly trip off the tongue, nor does either interoperation stand out, although the second seems slightly more sensible in context. IMO, were stasis intended, the law-makers should have written "maintained" or "held stationary." From mustikka at charter.net Sun Jul 16 19:25:32 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Sun Jul 16 19:27:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] References: <000e01c6a504$52ec2de0$259468d5@jeushtlj><6.1.1.1.0.20060712090817.02b4ead0@pop.starpower.net><000f01c6a88d$04e59e10$df9d87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0><001801c6a8a6$849a9ac0$029468d5@jeushtlj> <000001c6a8c9$47ca2200$94a6403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <000701c6a8fc$d7da7100$f4150947@DFYXB361> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 1:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "The true genius is a mind of large general powers, accidentally > determined to some > particular direction." > ~ Dr. Samuel Johnson. > ===================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 8:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Re: who should know which > rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] > > >>> [Grattan Endicott] >>> +=+ A good starting point may be the dictionary. >>> "Hold" = 'keep or sustain in a specified >>> position'. >> >> [nige1] >> Another dictionary meaning is... >> >> "Hold" = 'have or hold in one's hands or grip' >> >> Example: "Hold the club in your left hand" >> >> This primary meaning seem more apt, in context. >> Thus, many interpret the first part of the law as >> meaning that the card should be moved towards the >> table while being held, rather than accidentally >> dropped. (See previous discussions in BLML and >> RGB). >> > +=+ A position is specified. Nigel's suggested > interpretation is incongruous. ~ G ~ +=+ Well, I think not. Being a non-native English speaker, of which there are MANY in the bridge world (although they do use English - a foreign language - while playing or reading bridge), the phrase/word *hold* or *held* as it is used in the law can easily be understood in different ways. It cannot possibly hurt to make the meaning clear! Golf: Surely the club is moving, although it will still be _held_ the way a golf club is held. Cooking: Hold the whisk in your right hand and keep the bowl steady with your left hand. The whisk will be moving, although it is _held_ in the hand. Driving: Hold the wheel with both hands when entering a curve. Surely the wheel is moving, or else... Bridge: The card may be moving up, down, or sideways, while it is being _held_ by declarer, IMHO. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 17 10:52:34 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon Jul 17 10:45:12 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Seen many repeating arguments. Seems like a good time to start a new one. It has been said that you're free to vary your lead & carding conventions according to factors relevant to the deal (denomination, level, rank of the trick, rank of the discard ...). But I don't know whether it is correct to vary according to irrelevant factors. Note that I played the system described below a long time ago with a LOL (quite L and rather O) who wouldn't have considered any other method. Any discard denies interest in the suit (like when playing lavinthal discards) ; the play of a high / low card suggests the farther / closer suit as they are placed on the table. Which isn't a relevant factor of the deal. Legal or not ? Best regards Alain From ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com Mon Jul 17 12:50:10 2006 From: ranjubhattacharjee at hotmail.com (Ranju Bhattacharjee) Date: Mon Jul 17 12:51:57 2006 Subject: [blml] (no subject) Message-ID: My E-mail ID "ranjubhattacharjee@hotmail.com: _________________________________________________________________ Fall in Love... Get married! Join FREE! http://www.shaadi.com/ptnr.php?ptnr=msnhottag From mandache at free.fr Mon Jul 17 16:59:48 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Mon Jul 17 16:48:43 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1153148388.44bba5e436486@imp3-g19.free.fr> > the play of a high / low card suggests the farther / closer suit as they > are placed on the table. Farther/closer to whom? the discarder or the player who receives the signal? And if dummy is void in your favorite suit you say 'just a second, please' before discarding? Took me some time to understand the system, but it was worth, I really had a good laugh... Best, Manuela From adam at irvine.com Mon Jul 17 17:11:53 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon Jul 17 17:13:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Automatic filter In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:06:57 +1000." <6.2.0.14.2.20060715180441.06eaa1f0@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <200607171459.HAA21729@mailhub.irvine.com> Tony wrote: > My email program has started putting all of > T W-M's posting straight into "Junk". > > (Actually it seems to have been doing it for > a while - but then it also puts stuff from > my financial advisor into the same bin) > > Is this good or bad, I guess that depends on how good is the advice you've been getting from your financial advisor lately. :) -- Adam From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Jul 17 17:53:58 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon Jul 17 17:55:55 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Any discard denies interest in the suit (like when playing lavinthal > discards) ; > the play of a high / low card suggests the farther / closer suit as > they are placed on the table. > Which isn't a relevant factor of the deal. > > Legal or not ? IMHO legal. Although the cards of dummy (or the placement of the cards) are not a relevant factor of the board, it is a visible information for every player at the table. Law 40B states: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." The relevant part of the EBL regulations (for instance) reads: "[...] players may not use signalling methods by which the message or messages conveyed by the signals are hidden from the declarer because of some key available only to the defenders (i.e. encrypted signals are not allowed)" So, I believe this to be a mere problem of appropriate and timely disclosing such method. Regards Peter From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 17 19:12:30 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 17 19:13:00 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <003301c6a9c4$30e78040$219868d5@jeushtlj> [Alain Gottcheiner] >> Any discard denies interest in the suit >> (like when playing lavinthal discards) ; >> the play of a high / low card suggests the >> farther / closer suit as they are placed >> on the table. Which isn't a relevant factor >> of the deal. Legal or not ? > [Peter Eidt] > IMHO legal. Although the cards of dummy > (or the placement of the cards) are not a > relevant factor of the board, it is a > visible information for every player at > the table. [Law 40B states] > "A player may not make a call or play based > on a special partnership understanding unless > an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to > understand its meaning, or unless his side > discloses the use of such call or play in > accordance with the regulations of the > sponsoring organisation." [The relevant part of the EBL regulations (for > instance) reads] "[...] players may not use > signalling methods by which the message or > messages conveyed by the signals are hidden from > the declarer because of some key available only > to the defenders (i.e. encrypted signals are > not allowed)" So, I believe this to be a mere > problem of appropriate and timely disclosing > such method. [nige1] The trouble starts, when a pair take this to extremes e.g. their signals relate to the rank of the penultimate opening lead or the Date of Easter or the nth digit of pi. Arguably, I suppose it is OK, provided you can insist on an answer to "what does the signal show?" (without all the facts and reasoning needed to get there). In the interests of simplicity (and sanity), however, IMO, such signalling methods should be illegal. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Jul 17 20:32:02 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon Jul 17 20:34:03 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be><1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <003301c6a9c4$30e78040$219868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001401c6a9cf$5766ff10$f1e0f1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> ).Guthrie: > > In the interests of simplicity (and sanity), > however, IMO, such signalling methods should > be illegal. A fair statement in my opinion. Hardly anybody is so unique that not somebody else might have similar ideas. So we had this system of signalling recently in the Netherlands and as far as I know the regulating body has forbidden it. With exactly the reasons described with the words: simplicity and sanity. You could say that there is no bridge reason to have such a system, but only a 'make life as unpleasant as possible for the opponents'. Well our federation made that illegal. ton From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 18 00:45:32 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue Jul 18 00:45:32 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be><1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <003301c6a9c4$30e78040$219868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001b01c6a9f2$e1925040$1ad9403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 6:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] nearest card > Arguably, I suppose it is OK, provided you can > insist on an answer to "what does the signal > show?" (without all the facts and reasoning > needed to get there). > > In the interests of simplicity (and sanity), > however, IMO, such signalling methods should > be illegal. > From john at asimere.com Tue Jul 18 11:18:11 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue Jul 18 11:19:56 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be><1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><003301c6a9c4$30e78040$219868d5@jeushtlj> <001401c6a9cf$5766ff10$f1e0f1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: <001601c6aa4b$175a49a0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] nearest card > ).Guthrie: >> >> In the interests of simplicity (and sanity), >> however, IMO, such signalling methods should >> be illegal. > > > A fair statement in my opinion. Hardly anybody is so unique that not > somebody else might have similar ideas. So we had this system of > signalling > recently in the Netherlands and as far as I know the regulating body has > forbidden it. With exactly the reasons described with the words: > simplicity > and sanity. You could say that there is no bridge reason to have such a > system, but only a 'make life as unpleasant as possible for the > opponents'. > Well our federation made that illegal. Mmm. Under which Law? :) cheers john > > ton > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Jul 18 11:26:02 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue Jul 18 11:27:46 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be><1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><003301c6a9c4$30e78040$219868d5@jeushtlj> <001b01c6a9f2$e1925040$1ad9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <001b01c6aa4c$302c8be0$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] nearest card > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "The true genius is a mind of large general powers, accidentally > determined to some > particular direction." > ~ Dr. Samuel Johnson. > ===================================== > +=+ I doubt that the order of the suits laid out in dummy is embraced in > "the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." (Law 75A). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Really Grattan, you are being obtuse. Can I not say "Rightmost suit?" It's clearly a condition of the current deal. I am alarmed that ton feels he can forbid the method. I am inclined to Nigels's view that one can ban a method that is too complex in the same way as one can ban encrypted signals but this method is harmless. cheers John > ------------------------------------------------ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Guthrie" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 6:12 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] nearest card > > >> Arguably, I suppose it is OK, provided you can >> insist on an answer to "what does the signal >> show?" (without all the facts and reasoning >> needed to get there). >> >> In the interests of simplicity (and sanity), >> however, IMO, such signalling methods should >> be illegal. >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jul 18 11:52:10 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Jul 18 11:54:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) Message-ID: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl> > > Really Grattan, you are being obtuse. Can I not say "Rightmost suit?" It's > > clearly a condition of the current deal. I am alarmed that ton feels he > can > forbid the method. I am inclined to Nigels's view that one can ban a > method > that is too complex in the same way as one can ban encrypted signals In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were banned for no other reason than intoxication with power of bridge organisations. How can a method as simple as "if my partner has an odd number of hearts then we use upsided down carding" be too complex? Well, it is no more complex than the game of bridge itself. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 18 12:30:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jul 18 12:32:03 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <001401c6a9cf$5766ff10$f1e0f1c3@kooijmaniqk5lx> Message-ID: Ton wrote: > So we had this system of signalling > recently in the Netherlands and as far as I know the regulating body > has forbidden it. Are we still talking about the system described by Alain? The "nearest suit to signaller" is easy to explain, easy to remember and easy to understand - certainly much better on all counts than something like Dodds. Indeed if opps want to base their signals on the parity of the nth digit of Pi I have no problem with them doing so - any TD will forgive me for slapping such opps around a bit should they fail to disclose what that digit actually is. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 18 12:30:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jul 18 12:32:05 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <001601c6aa4b$175a49a0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: John wrote: > You could say that there is no bridge reason to have such a > > system, but only a 'make life as unpleasant as possible for the > > opponents'. > > Well our federation made that illegal. > > Mmm. Under which Law? :) cheers john L40D definitely suffices. It's a card play convention and fully subject to SO regulation. OK, I can see no reason to *want* to ban such an agreement - it doesn't seem to present difficulties for opps and while having no "bridge merit" over mckenny it doesn't appear to have a demerit either. It's non-bridge merit is that the visual reminder means it requires slightly less mental effort than McK. Nevertheless the NL may have encountered problems with this method I have not foreseen (perhaps when dummy tables one or more voids?). Tim If the suit order i From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 18 12:37:49 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jul 18 12:39:39 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <001601c6aa4b$175a49a0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000301c6aa56$38311d10$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John Probst ........... > > Well our federation made that illegal. > > Mmm. Under which Law? :) cheers john Quote: +=+ I doubt that the order of the suits laid out in dummy is embraced in "the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." (Law 75A). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jul 18 14:03:24 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue Jul 18 13:56:02 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: References: <001601c6aa4b$175a49a0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060718135535.020a44c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:30 18/07/2006 +0100, Tim wrote: >It's non-bridge merit is that the visual reminder means >it requires slightly less mental effort than McK. Perhaps that's why it enjoyed some success among LOLs of both genders. And I don't agree that this is a non-bridge merit. The less mental efforts you make to understand and remember your conventions, the more energy remains to play the right card. As a player of intricated systems, I'm always glad when some rule is easy to remember (and I usually structure system notes ADL-wise, with subroutines, to help in this way). >Nevertheless the NL may have encountered problems with this method I >have not foreseen (perhaps when dummy tables one or more voids?). A void is deemed to be at infinite, hence farther. We didn't look at the case of two voids, I'm afraid. I had a bet with a partner, who exclaimed : "you won't make them tear eachother apart on *this*" Apparently, he lost Regards Alain From david.j.barton at lineone.net Tue Jul 18 14:36:23 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Tue Jul 18 14:37:27 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 Message-ID: <000501c6aa66$c78d4c30$4201a8c0@david> One from last night's duplicate. West was making enquiries about the number of Diamonds held by each player on the board just completed. During these enquiries East started the bidding on the next board (with a pass). West then stated that he believed South - declarer on the just completed board had revoked (in Diamonds). Is this a L64B4 case - the statement that a revoke may have occurred was made AFTER his partner's call, or does the enquiries about the Diamond suit form part of the process of drawing attention which started before the first call. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/390 - Release Date: 17/07/2006 From gesta at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jul 18 15:11:28 2006 From: gesta at tiscali.co.uk (gesta@tiscali.co.uk) Date: Tue Jul 18 15:11:20 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be><1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><003301c6a9c4$30e78040$219868d5@jeushtlj><001b01c6a9f2$e1925040$1ad9403e@Mildred> <001b01c6aa4c$302c8be0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <002001c6aa6b$d1314ed0$b8de403e@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: ; "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] nearest card > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "BLML" > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:45 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] nearest card > > Really Grattan, you are being obtuse. Can I not say "Rightmost suit?" It's > clearly a condition of the current deal. I am alarmed that ton feels he > can forbid the method. I am inclined to Nigels's view that one can ban a > method that is too complex in the same way as one can ban encrypted > signals but this method is harmless. cheers John > From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Tue Jul 18 15:47:25 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue Jul 18 15:49:12 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209EB@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> I am sure this is L64B4 - there is still the opportunity to redress damage under L64C. If East won't let West complete his enquiries then EW might lose some rights. Robin -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces@amsterdamned.org]On Behalf Of David Barton Sent: 18 July 2006 13:36 To: blml@rtflb.org Subject: [blml] L64B4 One from last night's duplicate. West was making enquiries about the number of Diamonds held by each player on the board just completed. During these enquiries East started the bidding on the next board (with a pass). West then stated that he believed South - declarer on the just completed board had revoked (in Diamonds). Is this a L64B4 case - the statement that a revoke may have occurred was made AFTER his partner's call, or does the enquiries about the Diamond suit form part of the process of drawing attention which started before the first call. ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/390 - Release Date: 17/07/2006 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Jul 18 15:47:36 2006 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue Jul 18 15:49:27 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 In-Reply-To: <000501c6aa66$c78d4c30$4201a8c0@david> References: <000501c6aa66$c78d4c30$4201a8c0@david> Message-ID: <1G2pvE-0vl5v60@fwd34.aul.t-online.de> Hi, IMHO yes, Law 64 B4, no trick penalties An enquiry is not the same as 'drawing attention to an irregularity' nor is it a part from it. Regards, Peter > From: "David Barton" > One from last night's duplicate. > > West was making enquiries about the number of Diamonds held > by each player on the board just completed. During these enquiries > East started the bidding on the next board (with a pass). > West then stated that he believed South - declarer on the just > completed board had revoked (in Diamonds). > > Is this a L64B4 case - the statement that a revoke may have occurred > was made AFTER his partner's call, or does the enquiries about the > Diamond suit form part of the process of drawing attention which > started before the first call. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 18 15:52:54 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jul 18 15:54:42 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 In-Reply-To: <000501c6aa66$c78d4c30$4201a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000401c6aa71$77bbf1b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > One from last night's duplicate. > > West was making enquiries about the number of Diamonds held > by each player on the board just completed. During these enquiries > East started the bidding on the next board (with a pass). > West then stated that he believed South - declarer on the just completed > board > had revoked (in Diamonds). > > Is this a L64B4 case - the statement that a revoke may have occurred > was made AFTER his partner's call, or does the enquiries about the > Diamond suit form part of the process of drawing attention which > started before the first call. No, West made enquiries about the previous deal, but this in itself is not (IMHO) "calling attention" to a possible revoke. If West had said something like: "I wonder if there was a revoke on the last board, how many Diamonds did (each of) you have?" then "attention" would have been called in time. However, Law 64C still applies in your situation. Regards Sven From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 18 16:09:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jul 18 16:11:48 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <000301c6aa56$38311d10$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: Sven quoted: > +=+ I doubt that the order of the suits laid > out in dummy is embraced in "the calls, plays > and conditions of the current deal." (Law 75A). Of course one is left wondering to which deal the layout of cards in dummy relates if it is not the current one? They are visible to all players, there are penalties possible if improperly laid out. There seems no reason to exclude them from the broad church which is "conditions". SOs have L40d available if they wish to bar this convention and there really seems no need to be obtuse about it. Tim From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 18 16:38:06 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jul 18 16:39:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: On Jul 18, 2006, at 5:52 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were banned > for no other reason than intoxication with power of bridge > organisations. How can a method as simple as "if my partner > has an odd number of hearts then we use upsided down carding" > be too complex? Well, it is no more complex than the game > of bridge itself. While I am inclined to believe there is and has been a certain amount of "power intoxication" amongst bridge organizations - particularly the ACBL - I am not inclined to believe that is the sole reason for the ban on encrypted signals. In fact, until now, the only reason for the ban I've ever seen is that declarer can't know, from the cards alone, what information is transmitted. Were I to argue against such a ban, I would say that (a) declarer can ask questions, and will expect to get a straight and complete answer (he often won't, but that's a separate problem) and (b) if the rationale were valid, then we should also ban *all* artificial bids. But I'm not arguing against it, and I wonder if, when the ban was first proposed, anyone *did* present those arguments. As to banning something on the grounds of excess complexity, IMO that road leads to madness. What player is the touchstone for determining whether some method is too complex? Mrs. Guggenheim? No, you have to choose someone who has at least seen a clue stick. But how do we define it? Who decides? And what makes his judgement of what is too complex better than anyone else's? Oh, it's a committee, you say? Fine, so what? "A committee is an organism with six or more legs - and no brain" (Robert A. Heinlein). We nonetheless have committees who make decisions - although in some cases, at least, the committee is dominated by one man, so in effect it is *his* (or her, for that matter) decision that gets made "by the committee". But I think they should "protect" players as little as possible. It seems to me (never having played against such things as Forcing Pass systems) that an atmosphere of "anything goes, so long as there is full disclosure" is much better for the game than a lot of regulations designed to protect the clueless. Certainly Mrs. Guggenheim would have to learn to ask questions more often, and her opponents would have to learn to explain in a way she can understand, but is that such a major change in our game? OTOH, I remember this happening a couple of times: with about 5 or 6 tricks left to play, I face my hand and make what I believe to be a clear line of play statement. An opponent says "I can't see it, please play it out". This is of course illegal, but she doesn't know that. The point is she is clueless - she has no idea what's in her partner's hand, and she has no desire to expend the effort to work out what cards the defense might play on any given trick in the stated line even after the director comes and requires all four hands to be faced. No, she wants to do what she's used to doing, which is to play mindlessly on each trick in succession. We can, I suppose, "protect" such players from their own incompetence, but do we really want to do that? From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jul 18 17:00:25 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Jul 18 17:02:12 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <001601c6aa4b$175a49a0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: > ).Guthrie: >> >> In the interests of simplicity (and sanity), >> however, IMO, such signalling methods should >> be illegal. > >ton: > A fair statement in my opinion. Hardly anybody is so unique that not > somebody else might have similar ideas. So we had this system of > signalling > recently in the Netherlands and as far as I know the regulating body has > forbidden it. With exactly the reasons described with the words: > simplicity > and sanity. You could say that there is no bridge reason to have such a > system, but only a 'make life as unpleasant as possible for the > opponents'. > Well our federation made that illegal. Mmm. Under which Law? :) cheers john ******** Try 40D, that will work, ton From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 18 16:33:27 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jul 18 17:16:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <00c301c6aa7b$c5f20630$749787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:52 AM Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) > In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were banned for no other reason than intoxication with power of bridge organisations. How can a method as simple as "if my partner has an odd number of hearts then we use upsided down carding" be too complex? Well, it is no more complex than the game of bridge itself. < +=+ Not really justified, Konrad. The ban was instituted because the method was regarded as an attempt to conceal from opponent the full meaning of the play, contrary to the intention of Law 40B and 40C. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Jul 18 17:05:59 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue Jul 18 17:16:07 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 References: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209EB@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <00c401c6aa7b$c7068370$749787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- do the enquiries about the Diamond suit form part of the process of drawing attention ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** +=+ No. +=+ From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 18 17:39:17 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue Jul 18 17:41:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c6aa80$54ac6d80$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of Ed Reppert ................. > OTOH, I remember this happening a couple of times: with about 5 or 6 > tricks left to play, I face my hand and make what I believe to be a > clear line of play statement. An opponent says "I can't see it, > please play it out". This is of course illegal, but she doesn't know > that. The point is she is clueless - she has no idea what's in her > partner's hand, and she has no desire to expend the effort to work > out what cards the defense might play on any given trick in the > stated line even after the director comes and requires all four hands > to be faced. No, she wants to do what she's used to doing, which is > to play mindlessly on each trick in succession. We can, I suppose, > "protect" such players from their own incompetence, but do we really > want to do that? YES! What we actually want to do is to protect players from being "overrun" by more experienced players. The fundamental game of bridge consists of the auction leading to a specific "contract" followed by the play of thirteen tricks to decide the outcome of that contract. Claiming is a means to cut short needless play when the outcome is obvious, but this outcome must be obvious to all four players regardless of their "class". Regards Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jul 18 18:07:47 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue Jul 18 18:09:32 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44BD0753.4040603@meteo.fr> Tim West-Meads a ?crit : > Sven quoted: > > >>+=+ I doubt that the order of the suits laid >>out in dummy is embraced in "the calls, plays >>and conditions of the current deal." (Law 75A). > > > Of course one is left wondering to which deal the layout of cards in > dummy relates if it is not the current one? They are visible to all > players, there are penalties possible if improperly laid out. There > seems no reason to exclude them from the broad church which is > "conditions". SOs have L40d available if they wish to bar this > convention and there really seems no need to be obtuse about it. conditions of the deal (vuln. dealer...) are predefinite conditions which will be the same at all tables where the deal is to be played. order of the suits in dummy is of a different nature, it's not a reproductible condition and so, one can understand that tflb may wish to forbid its use in order to maintain equity between contestants. jpr > > Tim > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jul 18 18:19:29 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Jul 18 18:21:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) Message-ID: <20060718161929.DE220B89B@poczta.interia.pl> Ed wrote: > We nonetheless have committees who make decisions - although in some > cases, at least, the committee is dominated by one man, so in effect > it is *his* (or her, for that matter) decision that gets made "by the > committee". But I think they should "protect" players as little as > possible. It seems to me (never having played against such things as > Forcing Pass systems) that an atmosphere of "anything goes, so long > as there is full disclosure" is much better for the game than a lot > of regulations designed to protect the clueless. When I was a student I played regularly in tournaments on my university. Plus, naturally, I participated in Junior Championship of Poland. In the university tournaments more than 50% of pairs played some artificial (not necessarily strong pass) system of their own. Most of these systems were unplayable from a professional point of view, very often the pairs in question had no clue how to use them etc. but it was A LOT of FUN. Tremendous FUN. In the junior tournaments it was the same - the kids love to experiment. They love action. In those days there were quite a few pairs in Krak?w, playing strong pass systems. More importantly, average players gained experience against artificial systems and knew how to defend against them and were confortable playing against them. They knew them. On the other hand when you ban everything unorthodox then when exactly can people become familiar with it? As a result players become even more reluctant to anything unorthodox - it becomes a vicious circle. I remember a scene from a Soulet's club in Paris where I once played. My partner, a French guy, insisted on playing the Polish Club. This system is legal under the French regulations. On the very first deal my partner opened 1C, I alerted and began to explain the meaning of the bid and an opponent immediately interrupted: "what do you mean that a bid means this or that or that? I am going to call a director!". Which he did. This guy had been playing against the French Standard for all his life - that's why a Polish opening bid of 1C appeared to him as something incredibly complex. This is also the same mechanism that works now against strong pass systems or encryption signals - people cannot get used to them so they will become more and more reluctant to them. In one of the Rosenkranz's books he gave me a good laugh arguing along these lines: "nowadays conventions need to be tested first, and only those that stand the test of time are approved of and licensed". Where exactly can you become familiar with artificial systems now? Where exactly can they be tested so they could stand the test of time? About 10 years ago Poland adopted the WBF systems policy and, as a result the strong pass systems have extincted - nobody plays them. Younger players don't even know them. I stopped playing them because of the system restrictions and I know that for instance Balicki - Zmudzinski stopped playing them for the very same reason. So when the WBF claims that their systems policy is about "affording proper consideration to progress and innovation" then it is sheer nonsense - what happened in Poland demonstrates that WBF Systems Policy leads not to "progress and innovation" but only uniformization. One last example. I have a partner who wouldn't like to play anything unusual but for 7 years a played the "Bez Nazwy" system (aka No Name aka Suspensor pass = 13+ any, 1D = 0-7 any, 1H/S - 8-12 0-2 H/S or 6+H/S) with a guy named Tomasz who is still my teammate. Last year we were to play a 72-deal playoff match against Spojnia Warszawa - a team from the First Division with the Junior Teams World Championship runners-up from Sydney Kalita - Kotorowicz on the roster. If we won our team would replace them in the First Division. Kalita - Kotorowicz are helluva bridge players, very good, with international experience. They were certainly better than any other pair on our team. As it was a match of 72 deals all systems were allowed. We sent them full description of "Bez Nazwy" well in advance but we began in regular partnerships and after just 24 deals were down 50 IMPs. So I decided to sit down with Tomasz playing the strong pass system (we bid 100 deals before the match refreshing the system we hadn't used for years - it was our Plan B). We came back and won the whole thing by 2 IMPs mainly do to the 4th segment when Kalita - Kotorowicz probably played their first deals against "Bez Nazwy" in their lives. The more we played the better they handled our artificial system and if we played more then certainly their superior skills would become decisive but the damage done during the first 12 deals turned the tide. My point is that, say, 10 years ago, people playing strong pass systems were of course in the minority here but, for instance, the opening bids from "Bez Nazwy" was something that *everybody* in Poland knew. Right how we have a new generation of young players who don't even know what a strong pass system is, have never played against it and read about it. When they grow old they will of course become vehement opponents of anything unorthodox. Just like this gentleman from the French club. Provided that there will be anybody still playing bridge by that time. Which, looking at the age average of the members of bridge organisations, seems quite doubtful. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hiszpania za 9 groszy >>> http://link.interia.pl/f197b From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Jul 18 18:33:36 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue Jul 18 18:35:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <00c301c6aa7b$c5f20630$749787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl> <00c301c6aa7b$c5f20630$749787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <44BD0D60.4030804@meteo.fr> Grattan Endicott a ?crit : > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************ > "Say, from whence you owe > this strange intelligence?" > (Macbeth 1.sc3) > ----------------------------------------------- > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:52 AM > Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) > > > > In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were banned > for no other reason than intoxication with power of > bridge organisations. How can a method as simple > as "if my partner has an odd number of hearts then > we use upsided down carding" be too complex? Well, > it is no more complex than the game of bridge itself. > < > +=+ Not really justified, Konrad. The ban was > instituted because the method was regarded as > an attempt to conceal from opponent the full > meaning of the play, contrary to the intention of > Law 40B and 40C. > ~ G ~ +=+ the ban was instituted by people who didn't know what was the meaning of "encrypted signal". an encrypted signal refers to a clue (often a very large prime number) known by only a few people and preventing others to decode the signal. in bridge signaling, none of this: the coding method is disclosed to everybody and everybody may try to decode the signal, with varying success depending on the cards he is entitled to see. maybe it is not equitable but it is as everything else in the game: each one tries for his best with partial and different information, and tries not to provide opponents with too much information, without it being judged unfair. as it is presented, roman blackwood could also be classified as an encrypted signal: when responder gives a signal that he owns 0 or 3 aces, his partner who has, in mean, more aces than the opponents to be willing to call a slam, is in a better position to decode whether the signal is for 0 or 3. at bridge, the very equivalent of an "encrypted signal" would be a secret convention. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From john at asimere.com Tue Jul 18 18:48:25 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Tue Jul 18 18:50:10 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 References: <000401c6aa71$77bbf1b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> Message-ID: <002101c6aa89$fd65da70$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 2:52 PM Subject: RE: [blml] L64B4 >> On Behalf Of David Barton >> One from last night's duplicate. >> >> West was making enquiries about the number of Diamonds held >> by each player on the board just completed. During these enquiries >> East started the bidding on the next board (with a pass). >> West then stated that he believed South - declarer on the just completed >> board >> had revoked (in Diamonds). The Probst cheat profits. He realise WHY the question is being asked, stonewalls, fetches his hand out of the next board, and being dealer makes a call. The enquities themselves are related to enquiries regarding a revoke. I'd confidently rule that way. 64B not 64C John. >> >> Is this a L64B4 case - the statement that a revoke may have occurred >> was made AFTER his partner's call, or does the enquiries about the >> Diamond suit form part of the process of drawing attention which >> started before the first call. > > No, West made enquiries about the previous deal, but this in itself is not > (IMHO) "calling attention" to a possible revoke. If West had said > something > like: "I wonder if there was a revoke on the last board, how many Diamonds > did (each of) you have?" then "attention" would have been called in time. > > However, Law 64C still applies in your situation. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Tue Jul 18 19:04:32 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue Jul 18 19:06:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:33:27 BST." <00c301c6aa7b$c5f20630$749787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <200607181652.JAA00097@mailhub.irvine.com> Grattan wrote: > In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were banned > for no other reason than intoxication with power of > bridge organisations. How can a method as simple > as "if my partner has an odd number of hearts then > we use upsided down carding" be too complex? Well, > it is no more complex than the game of bridge itself. > < > +=+ Not really justified, Konrad. The ban was > instituted because the method was regarded as > an attempt to conceal from opponent the full > meaning of the play, contrary to the intention of > Law 40B and 40C. If that was the argument, it's not really a good one, IMHO. If a partnership's agreement is, "Our signal is upside-down if the hand contains an odd number of hearts and right-side up otherwise", then disclosing exactly that wouldn't be a violation of 40B/40C; I don't see how the spirit of those Laws would be violated. Declarer doesn't know what's in that defender's hand, of course, but we already know that players are entitled to know their opponents' agreements but not what's in their hands. Besides, Peter Whats-his-name who invented encrypted signals wrote an article for the ACBL's Bridge Encyclopedia explaining the concept, and he included an example where the same encrypting principles could be used in the bidding. His example: Suppose you play forcing major-suit raises that promise either an ace or a king in trumps; if opener also has an ace or a king, then the partnership has a "key" that can be used to make succeeding bids have two meanings depending on who has the ace and who has the king. Wouldn't those violate the spirit of those two Laws also? But nobody bans those, as far as I know; the ACBL definitely doesn't (assuming they occur at opener's second turn or later). I agree that Konrad's claim is unjustified. It seems fashionable to claim that when someone in power takes a position that one does not agree with, that it must have been because they're evil or corrupt or stupid or power-hungry or whatever. This sort of thinking is fashionable, but quite frankly, I detest it. Sadly, there probably have been instances where someone in power pushes for a ban on some convention because it was used successfully against them at the table. But IMHO those are the exception, not the rule, and I see no reason not to give those in charge of the game the benefit of the doubt and assume that their reasons are well-intentioned, even though they may be wrong-headed. -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 18 19:15:40 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jul 18 19:16:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <00f801c6aa8d$cc2ab760$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Konrad Ciborowski] > In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were > banned for no other reason than intoxication > with power of bridge organisations. How can a > method as simple as "if my partner has an odd > number of hearts then we use upside down > carding" be too complex? Well, it is no more > complex than the game of bridge itself. [nige1] Konrad is right; but then he is always right :) Encrypted signals are *not* just pointless complexity. There are excellent Bridge reasons to encrypt signals and (apart from the specific ban) no good legal reason why not. IMO Forbidding encrypted signals is like banning the strong pass -- it prevents the game of Bridge from reaching its inherent potential. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 10:52 AM Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) > > Really Grattan, you are being obtuse. Can I not say "Rightmost suit?" It's > > clearly a condition of the current deal. I am alarmed that ton feels he > can > forbid the method. I am inclined to Nigels's view that one can ban a > method > that is too complex in the same way as one can ban encrypted signals In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were banned for no other reason than intoxication with power of bridge organisations. How can a method as simple as "if my partner has an odd number of hearts then we use upsided down carding" be too complex? Well, it is no more complex than the game of bridge itself. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland -------------------------------------------------- -------------------- PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/390 - Release Date: 17-Jul-06 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 18 19:29:38 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jul 18 19:30:11 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be><1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><003301c6a9c4$30e78040$219868d5@jeushtlj> <001b01c6a9f2$e1925040$1ad9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <010c01c6aa8f$bf2a3f20$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ I doubt that the order of the suits laid > out in dummy is embraced in "the calls, plays > and conditions of the current deal." (Law 75A). [nige1] I suppose the ranks of the suits are defined somewhere in the legal conditions; but are the colours defined? If not, then would Grattan's argument ban conventions that depend on the colour of the suits? For example "Colour-rank-other" encoding for 2-suit combinations like Roman Blackwood and various 2-suit overcall methods? And Dodd's discards? On reflection, these conventions could all be specified in other (much more convoluted) ways... but it's an interesting thought. From mandache at free.fr Tue Jul 18 21:13:59 2006 From: mandache at free.fr (Manuela Mandache) Date: Tue Jul 18 21:02:46 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 In-Reply-To: <002101c6aa89$fd65da70$0701a8c0@john> References: <000401c6aa71$77bbf1b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <002101c6aa89$fd65da70$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <1153250039.44bd32f799058@imp3-g19.free.fr> Selon John Probst : > > The Probst cheat profits. He realise WHY the question is being asked, > stonewalls, fetches his hand out of the next board, and being dealer makes a > call. He is OS! so 64A (and C if necessary...) fully applies if his LHO doesn't fall for it by making a call. Best, Manuela From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jul 18 17:07:50 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Jul 18 21:06:40 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <002001c6aa6b$d1314ed0$b8de403e@Mildred> Message-ID: I do not think the Netherlanders are in the necessity of banning the method, I think it fails to conform with the requirements of the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ton: Ok, we together might think so, but then somebody shows up with this invention. Now what to do, other than banning it? John: I am alarmed that ton feels he > can forbid the method. Answer me why 40D isn't applicable and I might be in trouble, ton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060718/d9458e5d/attachment.htm From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Jul 18 17:29:50 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Tue Jul 18 21:06:43 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: > > Really Grattan, you are being obtuse. Can I not say "Rightmost suit?" It's > > clearly a condition of the current deal. I am alarmed that ton feels he > can > forbid the method. I am inclined to Nigels's view that one can ban a > method > that is too complex in the same way as one can ban encrypted signals In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were banned for no other reason than intoxication with power of bridge organisations. How can a method as simple as "if my partner has an odd number of hearts then we use upsided down carding" be too complex? Well, it is no more complex than the game of bridge itself. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland This is the answer of somebody who prefers shouting above thinking. The reason was not the complexity, though it would have been a good enough reason. The reason was that declarer can?t figure out what the meaning of the signal is. Meaning understood as bearing useful information. Let me give another example: both defenders are autistic and able to multiply many huge numbers. So they give the cards shown in dummy a big number and multiply and depending on the outcome, last two digits between 1-50 or 51 ? 00 or whatever, the card they play is dis- or en-couraging. It is all on their convention cards. Acceptable in your world, not in mine. It depends on the way you look at our game. Mine being more sane than yours, I dare to say. ton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060718/a405c67f/attachment.htm From cibor at poczta.fm Tue Jul 18 22:12:21 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue Jul 18 22:14:14 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060718152952.DFE633ACC48@mx.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <001e01c6aaa6$7e91df60$96471d53@k827b8a5159344> >This is the answer of somebody who prefers shouting above thinking. >The reason was not the complexity, though it would have been a good enough >reason. >The reason was that declarer can't figure out what the meaning of the >signal is. If course he can. If during the course of play he finds out that West has exactly 3 hearts then he knows that his club deuce was a encouraging card, but if he discovers that West started with 4 hearts than the c2 was a discouraging signal. Yes, he doesn't know that *immediately* but in exactly the same fashion he doesn't know immediately if somebody who opened the multi 2D has hearts or spades. > Meaning understood as bearing useful information. TREATMENT A: if my partner has an odd number of hearts then he discards upside down, otherwise standard TREATMENT B: if my partner has less than 6 spades then he has at least 6 hearts, an unspecified number of hearts otherwise Can you, as someone who supposedly takes pride in preferring thinking over shouting, explain to me that intrinsic difference between these two that makes you allow B but ban A? >Let me give another example: both defenders are autistic and able to >multiply many huge numbers. >So they give the cards shown in dummy a big number and multiply and >depending >on the outcome, last two digits between 1-50 or 51 - 00 or whatever, >the card they play is dis- or en-couraging. It is all on their convention >cards. >Acceptable in your world, Since when? Your example with multiplying big numbers is flawed because the key that allows players to find out the meaning of the signal (the last two digits of the multiplication) is something unrelated to bridge. You cannot expect a player to be able to multiply huge numbers or know the 126th digit of pi. But as for "if West has an even number of hearts then his c2 is discouraging" it's all about bridge and requires literally no non-bridge related skill. I would say that is even simpler than "my partner has a hand with at least 6 HCP and no more than 9 HCP with at most 3 cards in spades, at most two cards in hearts, and an unspecified distribution in the minors. My partner's bid announces that he prefers the final contract to be played in one of the minor suits or notrump or possibly hearts if I have at least six of them". The latter, in case you haven't noticed, is a description of the 1NT response to the 1H opening in Acol. The latter gives opponents a lot less information then the Treatment A described above. Defending the 1NT contract after the 1H - 1NT (not to mention the 1S - 1NT auction) pass start is a daunting task because declarer can have Kxx xx QJxx Kxxx or xxx --- AQxxxxx xxx or xxx --- AQJ xxxxxxx So both defenders are practically left blind. If you are not banning the 1NT response to 1H/S in Acol (which is, for all intents and purposes, an artificial negative) then why did you ban encrypted signals that give opponents more information than this artificial 1NT response to 1H/S? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 19 00:13:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jul 19 00:15:58 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <44BD0753.4040603@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Jean-Pierre wrote: > > conditions of the deal (vuln. dealer...) are predefinite conditions > which will be the same at all tables where the deal is to be played. > order of the suits in dummy is of a different nature, it's not a > reproductible condition and so, one can understand that tflb may wish > to forbid its use in order to maintain equity between contestants. Conditions need not be reproducible or consistent in order to exist. It's a perfectly good English word which covers a whole gamut of things like: State of the match/session Quality/system of opps Rulings given by the TD. etc, etc, etc All that is required in L75a is that the convention conveyed can be related to (and adequately explained in terms of) those conditions. As I said before - if an SO wishes to ban this method they have the power so to do without pin-headed angels trying to draw a distinction between a "condition" and a "circumstance". My personal opinion remains that this particular convention is sufficiently clear (and while I may dispute with Alain whether strictly having "bridge merit" rather than merely "kind to old people merit", meritworthy) that I would have no desire to ban it. Tim From john at asimere.com Wed Jul 19 00:42:10 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Wed Jul 19 00:43:56 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card References: Message-ID: <003901c6aabb$67d4e690$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "'BLML'" Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 4:07 PM Subject: RE: [blml] nearest card >I do not think the > > Netherlanders are in the necessity of banning the method, > > I think it fails to conform with the requirements of the law. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ snip > Answer me why 40D isn't applicable and I might be in trouble, > > ton I can see how we can use 40A/B to stop encrypted leads. There's a disclosure problem here. the defenders know MORE than declarer. But a suit preference signal is intrinsic to the game of bridge, and I have a feeling that regulating something which can be fully disclosed is contrary to what Kojak and I call "How we play bridge". There are hundreds of stupid conventions around we could regulate but don't; and to pick on this one seems arbitrary. I'm confident that "conditions of the deal" includes the order in which the suits are laid out, despite Grattan objecting - anything about a deal that is available to all sides is part of the "conditions of the deal" That's an open interpretation agreed, but obviously sustainable. Thinking aloud here ..... in online bridge one doesn't know how the suits are laid out, (the user can choose) so I can agree which option to choose and now my signalling becomes encrypted as opponents won't know my on-line layout. I would ban that. But I have severe problems banning something visible to all. 80F allows regulations not in conflict with law, 73A1 says we can communicate via calls and plays. 40 A/B allows any play with full disclosure Do I have a 73A1 right to communicate my suit preference signal with full disclosure? So are you making a regulation in conflict with 73A1 and 40A/B? 80F says you can't. .Does 40D only allow you to ban things that conflict with law? - in which case is it superfluous? I think we need a 40D to tell us what to do with conventions that fail 40A/B, otherwise we're in 12C territory without guidance. 40D makes 12C much easier to apply. There are other superfluities in the Laws. Hmm. I don't think it's 100% clear. I think I have reluctantly to accept you *can* ban it - but strongly believe you shouldn't as it's completely arbitrary, and I have serious doubt provided it's fully disclosed, as discussed above. cheers John snip> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From david.j.barton at lineone.net Wed Jul 19 00:52:29 2006 From: david.j.barton at lineone.net (David Barton) Date: Wed Jul 19 00:53:22 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 References: <000401c6aa71$77bbf1b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <002101c6aa89$fd65da70$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000b01c6aabc$d8ef8ff0$4201a8c0@david> Well at least I am not quite in my usual minority of one! Let us suppose West made one of the following statements:- (a) There is something odd going on here. How many Diamonds did you start with? (b) Either I can't count or someone revoked. (c) I think someone MAY have revoked here. (d) Director please!! In each case East opens the bidding on the following board AFTER West's statement. In which of the cases is L64B4 applicable? ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/390 - Release Date: 17/07/2006 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 19 01:58:59 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jul 19 02:00:56 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 In-Reply-To: <000b01c6aabc$d8ef8ff0$4201a8c0@david> References: <000401c6aa71$77bbf1b0$6400a8c0@WINXP> <002101c6aa89$fd65da70$0701a8c0@john> <000b01c6aabc$d8ef8ff0$4201a8c0@david> Message-ID: <482D91B8-87E3-4DA0-9830-0E5A96386CA4@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 18, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Barton wrote: > (a) There is something odd going on here. How many Diamonds > did you start with? That first sentence calls attention to an (unspecified, at this point) irregularity, IMO. > (b) Either I can't count or someone revoked. "Someone revoked" calls attention to an irregularity. > (c) I think someone MAY have revoked here. Calls attention to an irregularity. > (d) Director please!! Hm. This is the case that on first glance I was going to say calls attention to an irregularity. But does it? > In each case East opens the bidding on the following board AFTER > West's statement. > > In which of the cases is L64B4 applicable? In the first three cases, and the fourth if the answer to the question there is "yes", Law 9B2 prohibits any action by any player until the director makes his ruling, so East's action will not invoke 64B4. In case 4 where the answer is "no", a case could be made for invoking 64B4, but IME both players and directors treat a director call as invoking 9B2, whether or not attention was called to an irregularity, so I would dismiss such a case even though one gets to 9B2 only via attention having been called to an irregularity, and no other law, AFAIK, addresses what happens if the director is called absent such attention having been called. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 19 01:59:30 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jul 19 02:01:19 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 In-Reply-To: <000b01c6aabc$d8ef8ff0$4201a8c0@david> Message-ID: <000001c6aac6$35f8eb70$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of David Barton > Well at least I am not quite in my usual minority of one! > > Let us suppose West made one of the following statements:- > > (a) There is something odd going on here. How many Diamonds > did you start with? - Attention NOT called > (b) Either I can't count or someone revoked. - Attention called (borderline judgement) > (c) I think someone MAY have revoked here. - Attention called (borderline judgement) > (d) Director please!! - Attention called. (Any action by any player subsequent to a Director call is illegal until the Director gives his permission to continue) > In each case East opens the bidding on the following board AFTER > West's statement. > > In which of the cases is L64B4 applicable? Answered below each alternative. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 19 10:19:06 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed Jul 19 10:11:39 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <44BD0753.4040603@meteo.fr> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060719100930.02773e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:07 18/07/2006 +0200, Jean-Pierre wrote: >conditions of the deal (vuln. dealer...) are predefinite conditions which >will be the same at all tables where the deal is to be played. order of >the suits in dummy is of a different nature, it's not a reproductible >condition and so, one can understand that tflb may wish to forbid its use >in order to maintain equity between contestants. I'm sorry, Jean-Pierre, but there are several "conditions" of the deal which aren't the same at all tables, and which will make conventions vary. Yes, even carding conventions. I suppose you mean that "every pair playing such-and-such card convention will play it the same way (discarding judgement considerations) on the same deal". This isn't true, of course. Against notorious overpreemptors, our style of leads will be altered. The fact that some particular pairs are indeed overprremptors isn't a "predefinite and reproducible condition", but we're allowed to take this into account in our leading and carding style. Also, when partner opened a weak NT, we nearly always lead from strength, and therefore lead 3rd/5th, because "attitude" isn't needed anymore. This, too, is non-reproducible, since against one pair we will have opened 1NT in 2nd seat, and at another table, the pair playing the same convention will have faced a 1st seat opening. Therefore, "reproducibility" or "unuiformity" is not a necessary parameter in deciding whether a carding system is allowed. And don't tell me you aren't allowed to vary your leading stye according to the bidding. You are, it has been said here before. Regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 19 10:27:46 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed Jul 19 10:20:17 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <010c01c6aa8f$bf2a3f20$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <003301c6a9c4$30e78040$219868d5@jeushtlj> <001b01c6a9f2$e1925040$1ad9403e@Mildred> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060719102124.027706a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:29 18/07/2006 +0100, Guthrie wrote: >I suppose the ranks of the suits are defined >somewhere in the legal conditions; but are the >colours defined? Not in France, where diamonds are pale orange and clubs are green (of course). And in Spain, diamonds would be considered a "rounded" suit. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 19 10:30:24 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed Jul 19 10:22:56 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <002001c6aa6b$d1314ed0$b8de403e@Mildred> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be> <1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de> <003301c6a9c4$30e78040$219868d5@jeushtlj> <001b01c6a9f2$e1925040$1ad9403e@Mildred> <001b01c6aa4c$302c8be0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060719102810.027720f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:11 18/07/2006 +0100, gesta@tiscali.co.uk wrote: >===================================== >+=+ Really John, You are being imperceptive. The >order of the cards in dummy is not a condition of the >deal, it is an added circumstance created subsequently >by a player in the course of play. BTA the final contract at a particular table is "created subsequently by players in the course of play" and it is allowed to vary one's card conventions according to the final contract. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 19 09:25:41 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed Jul 19 10:25:04 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <003901c6aabb$67d4e690$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: John: I think I have reluctantly to accept you *can* ban it - but strongly believe you shouldn't as it's completely arbitrary, and I have serious doubt provided it's fully disclosed, as discussed above. cheers John ton: So we agree, my only statement being that 40D allows to ban such signalling. Whether it is wise to do so I allow myself to let you have your own opinion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060719/0dd43128/attachment.htm From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 19 09:45:29 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed Jul 19 10:25:07 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 In-Reply-To: <00c401c6aa7b$c7068370$749787d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: do the enquiries about the Diamond suit form part of the process of drawing attention ***************************************** david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** +=+ No. +=+ Ton: I wouldn't say 'no' that firmly. Isn't it possible that I start having a strange feeling about the play, missing a card somewhere and start asking a player about his holding? I am not able to give a yes/no answer on this question. It depends on what exactly happened. Defenders can't escape from a revoke penalty by starting the next auction. ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20060719/3017f38b/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 19 11:21:05 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed Jul 19 11:22:55 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 In-Reply-To: <200607190908.k6J98KNC025214@mail24.nsc.no> Message-ID: <000a01c6ab14$a9d286c0$6400a8c0@WINXP> On Behalf Of Ton Kooijman do the enquiries about the Diamond suit form part of the process of drawing attention ***************************************** ? david.j.barton@lineone.net ***************************************** ? +=+ No. +=+ ? Ton: ? I wouldn't say 'no' that firmly. Isn't it possible that I start having a strange feeling about the play, missing a card somewhere and start asking a player about his holding? I am not able to give a yes/no answer on this question. It depends on what exactly happened. Defenders can?t escape from a revoke penalty by starting the next auction. ? ton The "problem" that started this thread is that one player on the _NOS_ (say West) began investigating if there had been a revoke (say by South) and his partner (say East) started the next auction. The question to be answered is exactly where the "cutoff" is; what must West have said before East makes his first call for "attention to the revoke" having been called in time? But I believe we all agree that even if L64B4 applies so does L64C once the revoke is confirmed? Regards Sven From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 19 11:16:22 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jul 19 11:30:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060718152952.DFE633ACC48@mx.poczta.interia.pl> <001e01c6aaa6$7e91df60$96471d53@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <002301c6ab14$adacdac0$179687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- +=+ The fact remains that the method is designed not to reveal to opponent 'the full meaning' (L40C) of the play. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ .......................................................................... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) Of course he can. If during the course of play he finds out that West has exactly 3 hearts then he knows that his club deuce was a encouraging card, but if he discovers that West started with 4 hearts than the c2 was a discouraging signal. Yes, he doesn't know that *immediately* but in exactly the same fashion he doesn't know immediately if somebody who opened the multi 2D has hearts or spades. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 19 11:44:05 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jul 19 11:45:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060718152952.DFE633ACC48@mx.poczta.interia.pl><001e01c6aaa6$7e91df60$96471d53@k827b8a5159344> <002301c6ab14$adacdac0$179687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <009701c6ab17$e0a8e380$059468d5@jeushtlj> > [Grattan Endicott] > Wisdom ex cathedra... [nige1] In BLML, we seem to have adopted the quite sensible convention that it's OK for WBFLC members like Grattan and Kojak to "top-post". From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jul 19 12:23:42 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Jul 19 12:25:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) Message-ID: <20060719102342.B8F19173E75@poczta.interia.pl> > > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************ > "Say, from whence you owe > this strange intelligence?" > (Macbeth 1.sc3) > ----------------------------------------------- > +=+ The fact remains that the method is designed > not to reveal to opponent 'the full meaning' (L40C) > of the play. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ So is Puppet Stayman after the 1NT opening - a convention designed explicitely to conceal the opener's shape from the opponents while providing the 1NTers with the same degree of precision. Check this auction 1NT 2C <-- classic Stayman 2D 3NT pass 1NT 2C <-- classic Stayman 2D 2S <-- showing 4H 3NT pass On the first aution the defending side knows that the opener doesn't have a 4M - information that is very useful for them during the play. On the second one they only know that opener doesn't have 4H - and very often they won't find out if he has 4S or not until it is too late. Chech the Swedish methods - the Scanian raises of the 1H/S openers or their methods after the 1NT opening. Wirgren, Nisland et all. explicitely admit that they created these methods in order to conceal as much information from the opponents as possible from the opponents while not hurting the precision of their auctions at the same time. In a recent Martens' book he recommends that the sequence like 1S 2C 2D 3S deny any slam interest so that opener could bid 4S without revealing anything further about his shape if he is minimum. See the trend? This is the feature of every good convention in bridge - to provide partner with as much useful information while giving away as little information to the opponents. Encrypted signals don't do anything different than all these conventions that you mentioned above. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Jul 19 12:19:39 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed Jul 19 12:29:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060718152952.DFE633ACC48@mx.poczta.interia.pl> <001e01c6aaa6$7e91df60$96471d53@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <00ad01c6ab1c$eff913f0$179687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Say, from whence you owe this strange intelligence?" (Macbeth 1.sc3) ----------------------------------------------- +=+ The point about Multi is interesting. The convention was devised at a time when the laws said simply 'meaning', not 'full meaning'. It is in use now because SOs have used L40D to permit something that had become an ingrained practice before the law changed. In view of the precedent one should not argue if an SO allowed encrypted signals by 40D regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) Yes, he doesn't know that *immediately* but in exactly the same fashion he doesn't know immediately if somebody who opened the multi 2D has hearts or spades. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 19 13:27:03 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jul 19 13:28:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <002301c6ab14$adacdac0$179687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> References: <20060718152952.DFE633ACC48@mx.poczta.interia.pl> <001e01c6aaa6$7e91df60$96471d53@k827b8a5159344> <002301c6ab14$adacdac0$179687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <10AF6990-0B65-429C-A54B-2A19459C4F6F@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 19, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ The fact remains that the method is designed > not to reveal to opponent 'the full meaning' (L40C) > of the play. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 40C: "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score." Law 40B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." Certainly one cannot know the meaning of an encrypted signal without the key, but I see no reason why the SO's regulations cannot require disclosure of the meaning of the signal. In fact, I think in most jurisdictions they already do, particularly if they make some reference to the "principle of full disclosure". If the sole purpose of the method is to avoid the requirements of Law 40B, then I suspect such a regulation would cause the method to die a natural death. Whether that's better or worse (or neither) than killing the method outright I leave to others to decide. From cibor at poczta.fm Wed Jul 19 13:50:48 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Wed Jul 19 13:52:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) Message-ID: <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> > > On Jul 19, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ The fact remains that the method is designed > > not to reveal to opponent 'the full meaning' (L40C) > > of the play. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Law 40C: "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged > through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call > or play, he may award an adjusted score." > > Law 40B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special > partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be > expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the > use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the > sponsoring organization." > > Certainly one cannot know the meaning of an encrypted signal without > the key, but I see no reason why the SO's regulations cannot require > disclosure of the meaning of the signal. We are talking apples and oranges here. Can we, please, take out of this discussion methods that require from opponents knowing the height of Mount Everest in centimeters or the solution of a polynomial of the nth degree or T.S. Eliot's mother's birth date? I am not advocating making such methods legal. I am talking about situations where a key is entirely related to bridge and is not too complex for anyone to understand (leaving aside the problem of how we define "too complex"). An example: Say we have a 1NT opener who becomes declarer and revealed the exact number of cards in one suit during the auction. To make the situation even more specific: 1NT 2C (Stayman) 2S 3NT pass Both defenders know the number of spades in declarer's hand (provided that declarer wasn't mean enough to open 1NT on a hand with 5 spades - that is one of the weaknesses of the envrypted signals) so once the dummy goes down they know the exact number of spades in each other's hands. So now let's say that declarer asks about the meaning of the discard of the c2 by West. A proper response by East would be: "if my partner has an even number of spades then the c2 is encouraging, discouraging otherwise". Now if you insist on "requiring disclosure of the meaning of the signal" then you insist that East should tell declarer how many spades his partner has. By the some token you could argue that if I hold 7 spades and 25 HCP and my partner opens multi 2D then I should explain that my partner's bid shows 6-10 HCP and 6+H because otherwise I am not telling my opponents the "full meaning" of my partner's bid. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 19 14:14:41 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jul 19 14:16:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060718152952.DFE633ACC48@mx.poczta.interia.pl><001e01c6aaa6$7e91df60$96471d53@k827b8a5159344> <00ad01c6ab1c$eff913f0$179687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <00c101c6ab2c$ea923940$059468d5@jeushtlj> Whenever declarer shows out in a suit, defenders may have a wide variety of play-options to accurately transmit information that is hard for declarer to interpret. You must of course, disclose the details of your signals to declarer. In such contexts, however it won't help him much because it is easier for defenders to read a signal than declarer. In many similar contexts (for example, when a defender shows out) the positions are reversed -- then it is easier for declarer to read (and disrupt) defender's signals. Is it legal for defenders to signal like this? If so, then how much detail may they transmit? Are such opportunities an integral part of the beauty of our game? or can the law really regard such signals as "encrypted" in any meaningful sense? I know local players who would like an authoritative answer to this question. World-wide, I suspect that many top players already avail themselves of such opportunities, so the answer is of general interest. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 19 14:21:04 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jul 19 14:23:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: On Jul 19, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > A proper response by East would be: "if my partner has an even > number of spades then the c2 is encouraging, discouraging > otherwise". > > Now if you insist on "requiring disclosure of the meaning > of the signal" then you insist that East should tell > declarer how many spades his partner has. The problem is that the defenders have more information about the four hands than declarer has, and declarer *cannot* obtain the same information defenders have in a timely manner. Law 40B says "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning..." Declarer cannot reasonably be expected to understand the meaning of an encrypted signal unless he has the same key the defenders do. "or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." Here in the ACBL we have a thing called "the principle of full disclosure". As I understand that principle, if encrypted signals were allowed, then the regulations of the SO should require the meaning of the signal (or the value of the key, which amounts to the same thing) to be disclosed. We disagree? Very well then, we disagree. Life's like that sometimes. :-) From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Jul 19 14:56:34 2006 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed Jul 19 14:58:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) Message-ID: <2C2E01334A940D4792B3E115F95B72261209F0@exchsvr1.npl.ad.local> -----Original Message----- By the some token you could argue that if I hold 7 spades and 25 HCP and my partner opens multi 2D then I should explain that my partner's bid shows 6-10 HCP and 6+H because otherwise I am not telling my opponents the "full meaning" of my partner's bid. __________________ And Blackwood is encrypted if 4NT bidder has some keycards: 4NT - 5S = (I have CA) "SA, HA, DA" Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 19 17:16:57 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Jul 19 17:18:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "18 Jul 2006 18:19:29 +0200." <20060718161929.DE220B89B@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <200607191504.IAA09446@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > Ed wrote: > > > We nonetheless have committees who make decisions - although in some > > cases, at least, the committee is dominated by one man, so in effect > > it is *his* (or her, for that matter) decision that gets made "by the > > committee". But I think they should "protect" players as little as > > possible. It seems to me (never having played against such things as > > Forcing Pass systems) that an atmosphere of "anything goes, so long > > as there is full disclosure" is much better for the game than a lot > > of regulations designed to protect the clueless. > > When I was a student I played regularly in tournaments on my > university. Plus, naturally, I participated in Junior Championship > of Poland. In the university tournaments more than 50% of pairs > played some artificial (not necessarily strong pass) system > of their own. Most of these systems were unplayable from > a professional point of view, very often the pairs in question > had no clue how to use them etc. but it was A LOT of FUN. This doesn't sound like fun at all to me. My strength is in problem-solving, and that's what I find fun; I think a game where there's a lot of random and wild bidding leading to ridiculous contracts would take away a lot of the aspect of the game that I find fun. Or so it sounds like. Maybe that's not the case in practice. But the difference between the game I'm used to and the game you describe sounds a little like the difference between playing a game of chess, and putting the chesspieces on the board and having fun with the pieces. > Tremendous FUN. In the junior tournaments it was the same - > the kids love to experiment. They love action. > In those days there were quite > a few pairs in Kraków, playing strong pass systems. More > importantly, average players gained experience against > artificial systems and knew how to defend against them > and were confortable playing against them. They knew them. > On the other hand when you ban everything unorthodox > then when exactly can people become familiar with it? > As a result players become even more reluctant to > anything unorthodox - it becomes a vicious circle. > I remember a scene from a Soulet's club in Paris where > I once played. My partner, a French guy, insisted > on playing the Polish Club. This system is legal > under the French regulations. On the very > first deal my partner opened 1C, I alerted and began > to explain the meaning of the bid and an opponent > immediately interrupted: "what do you mean that > a bid means this or that or that? I am going to call > a director!". Which he did. > This guy had been playing against the French Standard > for all his life - that's why a Polish opening bid of 1C > appeared to him as something incredibly complex. This is also the > same mechanism that works now against strong > pass systems or encryption signals - people > cannot get used to them so they will become > more and more reluctant to them. I tend to take a middle approach when it comes to convention restrictions. There seem to be some restrictions that make no sense and don't seem to accomplish anything. But I am really bothered by this sort of attitude. It seems like you think that bridge organizations should tell people like your opponent, "We know you don't think it's fun to play against new and unusual systems (and things like encrypted signals), but we're going to force you to anyway because we think you'll have more fun in the long run". Sorry, but that is very patronizing, and I find it rather disgusting. Bridge organizations are in the business of serving their customers by providing something that they find entertaining. They should not be in the business of treating their customers as children who need to be trained. As a parent, I might insist that my children eat some food that they don't think they'll like, on the theory that eventually they'll learn to like it and it will be healthier for them. But the relationship between a bridge organization and its customers should not be like the relationship between me and my kids. So bridge organizations need to provide something that's fun for their customers. Unfortunately, what's fun for some is not what's fun for others, as I tried to explain in my first paragraph. There are plenty of people who don't find it fun to have to deal with defending against a bunch of artificial conventions. So what do you do? Try to find a balance---what else can you do? That's what I think bridge organizations are trying to do with convention restrictions, and it's a difficult job. They certainly don't get it right all the time. My main complaint is that bridge organizations have tended to settle for a "one-size-fits-all" approach to allowed conventions, rather than trying to provide separate types of events so that those who like the kind of wildness you described at the beginning of your post, and those who don't, can each have the kind of fun they prefer. This is probably easier now that we have the Internet; an organization like the ACBL could stage an all-conventions-allowed tournament online and probably get a fair number of people to participate, since the players could come from anywhere in North America and wouldn't have to travel. I don't think the ACBL has done enough to take advantage of this possibility (I just don't know about other SO's). Maybe doing so *would* generate more interest among young people. But in any case, I really believe that any discussion about the "right" amount of convention restrictions should center around how we're going to best serve the most people's desire for a fun game, and should show respect for those whose idea of fun differs from our own. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 19 17:18:03 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Jul 19 17:19:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:15:40 BST." <00f801c6aa8d$cc2ab760$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <200607191505.IAA09502@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > Konrad is right; but then he is always right :) > Encrypted signals are *not* just pointless > complexity. There are excellent Bridge reasons to > encrypt signals and (apart from the specific ban) > no good legal reason why not. IMO Forbidding > encrypted signals is like banning the strong > pass -- it prevents the game of Bridge from > reaching its inherent potential. Its inherent potential to do what? -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 19 17:25:13 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Jul 19 17:27:00 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:19:39 BST." <00ad01c6ab1c$eff913f0$179687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <200607191512.IAA09564@mailhub.irvine.com> > from Grattan Endicott > grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk > [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] > ************************************ > "Say, from whence you owe > this strange intelligence?" > (Macbeth 1.sc3) > ----------------------------------------------- > +=+ The point about Multi is interesting. The convention > was devised at a time when the laws said simply 'meaning', > not 'full meaning'. It is in use now because SOs have used > L40D to permit something that had become an ingrained > practice before the law changed. In view of the precedent > one should not argue if an SO allowed encrypted signals > by 40D regulation. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I can't believe you made this argument. Multi may have been around a long time, but what about the myriad of other conventions that show an unknown suit that have been invented more recently? In Cappelletti, a 2C overcall over 1NT shows a single unknown one-suiter. Similarly, several of the bids in DONT show one unknown suits, and the way Bergen invented the convention, a 2NT overcall shows a strong major-minor two-suiter where neither suit is known. So to argue that Multi is a special case because it was old enough to be "grandfathered" in when the wording of the Laws changed, just doesn't make any sense. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 19 17:38:49 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Jul 19 17:40:36 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:21:04 EDT." Message-ID: <200607191526.IAA09672@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Jul 19, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > A proper response by East would be: "if my partner has an even > > number of spades then the c2 is encouraging, discouraging > > otherwise". > > > > Now if you insist on "requiring disclosure of the meaning > > of the signal" then you insist that East should tell > > declarer how many spades his partner has. > > The problem is that the defenders have more information about the > four hands than declarer has, and declarer *cannot* obtain the same > information defenders have in a timely manner. > > Law 40B says "A player may not make a call or play based on a special > partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be > expected to understand its meaning..." > > Declarer cannot reasonably be expected to understand the meaning of > an encrypted signal unless he has the same key the defenders do. I don't see why this, by itself, is a problem. There are lots of cases where a defender is going to understand the meaning of his partner's signal better than declarer is, simply because the defender is looking at his own cards and declarer isn't. Say partner makes an encouraging discard in a suit and I'm looking at AQ of the suit. I know partner has the king; declarer doesn't know how the suit is laid out. Or, if partner makes a suit-preference play asking me to lead a suit, and I have a lot of length in the suit that I never showed during the auction, I may know that partner is short in the suit, and declarer doesn't. Or, partner may play the 7 of a suit. Playing upside-down signals, I know it's encouraging because I'm looking at the 6542 in my hand and the 3 in dummy; declarer won't know that. If declarer asks me the meaning of partner's signal, do the Laws require me to tell declarer that it's encouraging? Certainly not! Normally, if I knew from our agreements that it was an attitude signal, I'd say "It's discouraging if it's a high card, encouraging if it's a low card, relative to the his other cards in the suit". [With my regular partner, I'd have to add more if's because we don't have fixed agreements about what signals are attitude or convey other messages.] So, from a full disclosure standpoint, is there really any difference between that kind of explanation, and "It's discouraging if he has an odd number of hearts, and encouraging if he has an even number of hearts"??? I just don't see it at all. It seems just as much to be fully disclosing the meaning as something like "It's discouraging if it's a high card and encouraging if it's a high card". I can accept a ban on encrypted signals; the Laws give SO's the power to do so, and they may do so for whatever reasons they choose, including the reason that they think it may give defenders too great an advantage. But I cannot accept that "violating the spirit of Law 40" is a legitimate reason. It's actually quite ridiculous. -- Adam From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jul 19 17:44:40 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed Jul 19 17:52:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <200607191504.IAA09446@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200607191544.k6JFieFk002107@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Adam Beneschan writes: > > Bridge organizations are in the business of serving their customers by > providing something that they find entertaining. An interesting (to me at any rate) example comes from college basketball. Remember the joys of the four corner offense? For non-basketbnall fans, basically the offensive team would move their player far apart and simply pass the ball back and forth. The idea (and it's sound from a theoretical point if not an entertainment point) is to shoot only free throws or layups. And if that means passing the ball back and forth for 10 minutes at a time, so be it. (And if 10 minutes sounds like hyperbole, it isn't) In a sense basketball's shot clock is not unlike systems restrictions. Restricting potentially sound style choices in the name of entertainment. From richard.willey at gmail.com Wed Jul 19 18:12:28 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Wed Jul 19 18:14:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <200607191505.IAA09502@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <00f801c6aa8d$cc2ab760$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> <200607191505.IAA09502@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0607190912y5e2e5ed8m689c30bee34ae6e1@mail.gmail.com> On 7/19/06, Adam Beneschan wrote: > Its inherent potential to do what? > > -- Adam Converge onto equilibirum I agree with your "ends". If bridge is going to survive as a game, players need to be presented with an enjoyable environment in which they can socialize and compete. I'd even go so far as to agree that players have a comfort zone. They like the familiar and look with disdain on that which is new and unexpected. With this said and done, I very much disagree with your "means". There are two different ways in which one can guarantee that players face a predictable playing environment. One option is to allow nature to take its course. Strong methods will survive, weak methods will go the way of the dodo. Over time, the system will converge onto some form of equilibrium. I can't predict what that equilibrium will look like. In theory, one dominant system might arise (The Estonian Club might be so much better than anything else out there that all other bidding systems get condemned to the dustbin). Alternatively, its entirely possible that the equilibrium is a stable population of bidding systems distributed using some golden ratio. You might even have a cyclical equilibrium in which this optimal ratio changes over time. In any case, the system will (eventually) converge on some thing. Once the system converges, people will know what to expect. The second option is to try to achieve the same end through the legislative process. Pass a series of laws intended to make the world safe for bad bidding systems. There are two problems with this approach: First, I'd argue that this destroys the much of the aesthetics of the game. Equally significant - and much less subject - People aren't good at writing comprehensive legal systems. In particular, if you go and protect a set of suboptimal bidding methods you create a powerful incentive for folks to screw with the system. In theory, all the folks out there are trying to win. In turn, this means that there are a lot of folks who are going to be picking over your legal system trying to find flaws that they can exploit. The ugliest incidents of all crop up when folks raised in a sterile little bubble suddenly encounter something nasty that has slipped in from outside... -- "The chill, malevolent eyes of the plastic flamingos on the lawn tracked his every move, and their sinister painted beaks whispered of the black and terrible voids between the stars where even now, Elvis might still be alive" From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Jul 19 19:01:40 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed Jul 19 19:03:26 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060719100930.02773e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060719100930.02773e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <44BE6574.5080608@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > At 18:07 18/07/2006 +0200, Jean-Pierre wrote: > > >> conditions of the deal (vuln. dealer...) are predefinite conditions >> which will be the same at all tables where the deal is to be played. >> order of the suits in dummy is of a different nature, it's not a >> reproductible condition and so, one can understand that tflb may wish >> to forbid its use in order to maintain equity between contestants. > > > I'm sorry, Jean-Pierre, but there are several "conditions" of the deal > which aren't the same at all tables, and which will make conventions > vary. Yes, even carding conventions. > > I suppose you mean that "every pair playing such-and-such card > convention will play it the same way (discarding judgement > considerations) on the same deal". > This isn't true, of course. > > Against notorious overpreemptors, our style of leads will be altered. > The fact that some particular pairs are indeed overprremptors isn't a > "predefinite and reproducible condition", but we're allowed to take this > into account in our leading and carding style. > > Also, when partner opened a weak NT, we nearly always lead from > strength, and therefore lead 3rd/5th, because "attitude" isn't needed > anymore. This, too, is non-reproducible, since against one pair we will > have opened 1NT in 2nd seat, and at another table, the pair playing the > same convention will have faced a 1st seat opening. > > Therefore, "reproducibility" or "unuiformity" is not a necessary > parameter in deciding whether a carding system is allowed. > And don't tell me you aren't allowed to vary your leading stye according > to the bidding. You are, it has been said here before. i may be wrong but, as i understand L75A, you may make your agreements depend on "conditions of the current deal" which i read as predefinite conditions, and "calls, plays" which are the varying part of the game. i think "calls, plays" enbrace 4 players'actions and their meaning. jpr > > Regards > > Alain > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 19 19:03:41 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Jul 19 19:05:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:12:28 EDT." <2da24b8e0607190912y5e2e5ed8m689c30bee34ae6e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200607191651.JAA10353@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard Willey wrote: > On 7/19/06, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Its inherent potential to do what? > > > > -- Adam > > Converge onto equilibirum > > I agree with your "ends". If bridge is going to survive as a game, > players need to be presented with an enjoyable environment in which > they can socialize and compete. I'd even go so far as to agree that > players have a comfort zone. They like the familiar and look with > disdain on that which is new and unexpected. With this said and done, > I very much disagree with your "means". They are not *my* means. I don't have any "means". Figuring out what will provide the most enjoyment for players requires a lot more knowledge of players, and of the realities of putting on bridge tournaments, than I have. I think that judgments like this need to be made by people who have been around the bridge world for a long time, and probably who have been very active as player and possibly volunteering in other ways. I accept that those who are currently charge have much more of this needed kind of knowledge than I do, and that they're in a position to make better judgments about what's needed. This doesn't necessarily mean that they're actually making better judgments---only that they're in a position to. Your arguments below don't give me any reason to believe that you have the necessary understanding at all. They seem to all come from abstract mathematical reasoning and a philosophical view of the world---not from any real understanding of either players or of the business of bridge. > There are two different ways in which one can guarantee that players > face a predictable playing environment. One option is to allow nature > to take its course. Strong methods will survive, weak methods will go > the way of the dodo. So what? You seem to be assuming that if one "best" system is found, then everyone will start playing it and will know how to defend against it, then this will increase everybody's level of fun because players won't have to be learning new systems all the time. I think there are a number of serious flaws. First, you're assuming that there will be an equilibrium. There may not be. One reason I think this is that there seems a pendulum with regard to how weak to preempt. Back when preempts were mostly sound, players found that there was no great need for penalty doubles, so defenses to preempts were adjusted to provide more ways to bid constructively. Then preemptors started figuring out that they weren't going to get penalized, so they started preempting on trash. Then defenses to preempts got adjusted to make the preemptors pay for lunch more often. So now it seems like players are being a bit more careful about preempts, particularly vulnerable. (At least I am. I'm not so sure about my partner.) So does this mean that players are going to be less interested in penalizing preemptors and using the bidding room for more constructive purposes, and then preemptors are going to start lightening up again, and so on? I don't see any particular reason to believe that there must be an equilibrium point. Second, suppose one "best" system is found: will that necessarily lead to providing a game that's more enjoyable? One of the complaints I hear from people trying to learn bridge is that there's just too much to learn. When it comes to play of the hand, that's very simple to learn (but hard to master). Similarly, the rules of bidding aren't that difficult. But while you can play and defend a hand using nothing more than the rules, logic, and perhaps a very simple knowledge of signals, you can't bid intelligently without some sort of language on which to base your bids. So that has to be learned, and that's what I think is hardest for new players. If the "best" system is a very complex one, is requiring players to learn it going to be conducive to the end of providing an entertaining game for people, even if everyone plays the same system? For some, yes. For most, I suspect not. I think it would even cut into my enjoyment of the game, although learning complex bidding structures is probably a lot easier for me than most other people. I'm just more interested in play and defense. Third, you say that the system will converge "over time". What will happen until then? You seem to be quite comfortable with the idea that many people might be driven away from the game, based on your theory that eventually, at some undetermined point in the future, the game would stabilize to a point that it would attract huge numbers of players because its equilibrium would make it more enjoyable. Or something like that. But I certainly hope that those in charge of bridge organizations do not see things this way! I hope that they care more about their customers than that. This leads me to believe that you don't really agree with the ends I describe, even though you say you do. Bridge organizations try, or should try, to provide a form of entertainment for their customers; your attitude appears to be incompatible with that. > Over time, the system will converge onto some > form of equilibrium. I can't predict what that equilibrium will look > like. In theory, one dominant system might arise (The Estonian Club > might be so much better than anything else out there that all other > bidding systems get condemned to the dustbin). Alternatively, its > entirely possible that the equilibrium is a stable population of > bidding systems distributed using some golden ratio. You might even > have a cyclical equilibrium in which this optimal ratio changes over > time. In any case, the system will (eventually) converge on some > thing. Once the system converges, people will know what to expect. > > The second option is to try to achieve the same end through the > legislative process. Pass a series of laws intended to make the world > safe for bad bidding systems. There are two problems with this > approach: First, I'd argue that this destroys the much of the > aesthetics of the game. So what? Once again, when you make arguments like this, it leads me to believe that you do *not* agree with the purposes of providing an enjoyable form of entertainment. I just don't think that's your priority. > Equally significant - and much less subject - > People aren't good at writing comprehensive legal systems. In > particular, if you go and protect a set of suboptimal bidding methods > you create a powerful incentive for folks to screw with the system. > In theory, all the folks out there are trying to win. In turn, this > means that there are a lot of folks who are going to be picking over > your legal system trying to find flaws that they can exploit. That's not true in my experience. There may be a handful of people who do this. But not a lot. So your theory seems to be just wrong here. -- Adam From bridge at vwalther.de Wed Jul 19 19:25:29 2006 From: bridge at vwalther.de (volker walther) Date: Wed Jul 19 19:27:04 2006 Subject: [blml] another Claim Message-ID: <44BE6B09.2020509@vwalther.de> Maybee this one is easy: Diamonds are Trump. At the three card ending declarer is in hand, holding S:7,H:8,D:7 opposite H:KQJ He now claims the rest of the tricks "it is all high" First question: Is it a "normal play" to play the S7 before crossing to Dummy? In fact at this point of the game the S7 was a high card too, but it was a card wich could have been played during a revoke that occured earlier. So here is the (second) question that I had to answer at the table: 1 or 2 penalty tricks? I judged 2 tricks penalty, now I am in doubt. The full hand was: AJ8 KQJT 963 985 KZ52 96 A75 9643 Q K54 AJT42 AJT Q743 82 AJT872 Q After a spade lead East West found a way to play two more rounds of spades. West on lead played then his King of spades at last. It was ruffed with the D9, overruffed with the king and south "followed suit" by playing his D2 instead of S7. greetings, Volker Walther From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 19 19:40:07 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Jul 19 19:41:54 2006 Subject: [blml] another Claim In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:25:29 +0200." <44BE6B09.2020509@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <200607191727.KAA10753@mailhub.irvine.com> Volker Walther wrote: > Maybee this one is easy: > > Diamonds are Trump. At the three card ending declarer is in hand, holding > > S:7,H:8,D:7 opposite H:KQJ > > He now claims the rest of the tricks "it is all high" > > First question: > Is it a "normal play" to play the S7 before crossing to Dummy? > > > > > > > > In fact at this point of the game the S7 was a high card too, but it > was a card wich could have been played during a revoke that occured > earlier. In that case, if the S7 is high, it certainly would *not* be an irrational play to cash the good S7 first. So playing the S7 has to be considered "normal", and therefore I think you ruled correctly. > So here is the (second) question that I had to answer at the table: > > 1 or 2 penalty tricks? > > I judged 2 tricks penalty, now I am in doubt. > > The full hand was: > > > AJ8 > KQJT > 963 > 985 > KZ52 96 > A75 9643 > Q K54 > AJT42 AJT > Q743 > 82 > AJT872 > Q This deck has three tens and a zehn? :-) Well, I guess that's better than using X for ten. (Actually, it seems to have four tens and a zehn. That club layout looks mighty strange, but I think I can tell what you were trying to do.) -- Adam From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 19 20:25:45 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jul 19 20:27:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <200607191526.IAA09672@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200607191526.IAA09672@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <3A42C748-D6C0-492E-A95B-4C1748506823@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 19, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > But I cannot accept that "violating the spirit of Law > 40" is a legitimate reason. It's actually quite ridiculous. Those are your words, not mine. From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 19 20:35:49 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed Jul 19 20:37:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:25:45 EDT." <3A42C748-D6C0-492E-A95B-4C1748506823@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <200607191823.LAA11284@mailhub.irvine.com> Ed wrote: > On Jul 19, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > But I cannot accept that "violating the spirit of Law > > 40" is a legitimate reason. It's actually quite ridiculous. > > Those are your words, not mine. Actually, Grattan's original words were "contrary to the intention of Law 40B and 40C", which seems to me to be about the same thing. Your argument seemed to be supporting his. However, I apologize for anything I said that misrepresented, or could have been interpreted to misrepresent, your position. -- Adam From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Jul 19 21:18:17 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed Jul 19 21:25:36 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <003901c6aabb$67d4e690$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <200607191918.k6JJIHsn003888@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> John Probst writes: > > I can see how we can use 40A/B to stop encrypted leads. There's a disclosure > problem here. the defenders know MORE than declarer. But a suit preference > signal is intrinsic to the game of bridge, and I have a feeling that > regulating something which can be fully disclosed is contrary to what Kojak > and I call "How we play bridge". There are hundreds of stupid conventions > around we could regulate but don't; and to pick on this one seems arbitrary. I've always understood that the unofficial reason for regulating a lot of the more complex signals has to do with tempo issues when there isn't a suitable card to play. Slow encouraging is *very* meaningful if you know what I mean. I know Bob Hamman's been one of the main advocates of this line of reasoning and his opinions carry a lot of weight. Yes. Good ethical players will have thought through the issues and are capable of playing the "wrong" card in tempo. Yes ethical players with less experience will quickly learn to do the right thing if given the chance -- and they have no chance to learn if they can't play the signals. I'm of two minds here. I honestly don't care what people play. I've played pretty much everything myself and have over time become something of a pragmatic minimalist. But I do find Hamman's (and plenty of others) arguments persuasive. My experience against complex signalling isn't what you'd call extensive, but my observations match up pretty well with Hamman's. In practice there seems to be a great deal of abuse. And as such I'm sympathetic with regulators -- though I'm far from certain that the approach is best. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Wed Jul 19 20:56:10 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Wed Jul 19 22:54:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <200607191505.IAA09502@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <000401c6ab75$644366e0$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Beneschan] > [Forbidding encrypted signals, banning strong > pass etc prevents the game of Bridge from > reaching its inherent potential] to do what? [nige1] To provide varieties of intellectual exercise, to expose fields for the creation of beautiful new constructs; to free players so that they may enjoy themselves. IMO, Bridge rules should enhance rather than restrict players' enjoyment. I've taught Bridge for ages; all teachers will confirm that beginners love systems and conventions. Rudeness and incomprehensible rulings drive some of them away from tournament bridge. Strange methods they just find intriguing. Law-makers report that most players shun innovation. Strange I haven't met such a player. Of course, there are many players, who want a friendly sociable game without having to learn too much. Fair enough. Lots of simple system events should be available. I would like to play in some. For others, there seems no need to impose any restriction on method, *provided it is easily comprehensible and disclosed* (Strong pass systems and encrypted signals are simple enough to explain). From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Jul 20 00:46:48 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Jul 20 00:48:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <200607191504.IAA09446@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <001b01c6ab85$402c1a30$94151d53@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) > > Konrad wrote: > >> Ed wrote: >> >> > We nonetheless have committees who make decisions - although in some >> > cases, at least, the committee is dominated by one man, so in effect >> > it is *his* (or her, for that matter) decision that gets made "by the >> > committee". But I think they should "protect" players as little as >> > possible. It seems to me (never having played against such things as >> > Forcing Pass systems) that an atmosphere of "anything goes, so long >> > as there is full disclosure" is much better for the game than a lot >> > of regulations designed to protect the clueless. >> >> When I was a student I played regularly in tournaments on my >> university. Plus, naturally, I participated in Junior Championship >> of Poland. In the university tournaments more than 50% of pairs >> played some artificial (not necessarily strong pass) system >> of their own. Most of these systems were unplayable from >> a professional point of view, very often the pairs in question >> had no clue how to use them etc. but it was A LOT of FUN. > > This doesn't sound like fun at all to me. My strength is in > problem-solving, and that's what I find fun; My point exactly! This tournament was made for people who loved to experiment, who loved unorthodox systems, who enjoyed playing forcing pass systems and playing against them. You wouldn't like it - fine, you can play in your tournaments, I can play in mine and we can both enjoy it. So why is there almost no place in the world where you can participate in such an "everything goes" tournament right now? Because bridge organisations introduced regulations that forbid this type of tourney - and that restriction has a total character. There is no single tournament in Poland (or France, or USA etc.) where you could play a forcing pass system any more (I am talking about tourneys where you play no more than 2 or 3 boards against other pairs) - such a tournament would be illegal under the systems policy that is currently in place here even if 100% of participants had no objections. This is what I call intoxication with power - why hasn't it even occurred to all these legislation committees in various bridge governing bodies that there are people who actually might *want* to play against pairs using encrypted signals? Instead of leaving as much freedom as possible to the organisers of various tournaments (which is essentially what is being done on BBO where "all systems allowed" and "Acol only" tourneys coexist - what is wrong with that?) they prefer to impose their idea of fun and enjoyment on everyone. Thou shalt not use encrypted signals. Period. Even if your opponents would like to play against this method. This totalitarian state of mind is what I vehimently object to - uniformization sucks. Diversity rulez. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland PS I fell in love with strong pass systems not because they create chaos at the table but because of something exactly opposite - their internal logic, aesthetic and logical construction, and a plethora of very interesting, non-trivial tactical problems they create at the table. If your idea of the strong pass systems is "putting the chesspieces on the board and having fun with the pieces" then I am afraid it is a far from the truth as it can possibly be. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a From adam at irvine.com Thu Jul 20 01:25:00 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu Jul 20 01:26:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:46:48 +0200." <001b01c6ab85$402c1a30$94151d53@k827b8a5159344> Message-ID: <200607192312.QAA13781@mailhub.irvine.com> Konrad wrote: > You wouldn't like it - fine, you can > play in your tournaments, I can play in mine and we can both enjoy it. > So why is there almost no place in the > world where you can participate in such an "everything goes" tournament > right now? > Because bridge organisations introduced regulations that > forbid this type of tourney - and that restriction has a total > character. There is no single tournament in Poland > (or France, or USA etc.) where you could play a forcing > pass system any more (I am talking about tourneys > where you play no more than 2 or 3 boards against other pairs) > - such a tournament would be illegal under > the systems policy that is currently in place here even if > 100% of participants had no objections. This is what I call > intoxication with power - why hasn't it even occurred > to all these legislation committees in various bridge governing > bodies that there are people who actually might *want* to play > against pairs using encrypted signals? A club in the ACBL could hold its own tournament and allow encrypted signals or any other convention that isn't allowed in any national ACBL event. And any organization can set up any tournament it wants with any convention it wants to allow, if it didn't award ACBL masterpoints. The ACBL couldn't do anything to stop them---nor, I believe, would they particularly want to. If there really were enough people who would play in such a tournament to make it profitable to hold one, why hasn't someone? That's one of the reasons I'm rather cynical about complaints about what the ACBL allows or doesn't allow. Lots of people seem to argue that allowing unlimited conventions would get young people interested and revitalize the game, but these same people who are so very imaginative when it comes to dreaming up new and interesting conventions can't seem to think outside of the box when it comes to setting up a tournament where they and others like them could have fun with them. They just expect the ACBL to provide it for them. Either that, or there really aren't enough people with that sort of interest to make a tournament like that feasible for the money. I dunno. > Instead of leaving as much freedom as possible to the organisers > of various tournaments (which is essentially what is being > done on BBO where "all systems allowed" and "Acol only" > tourneys coexist - what is wrong with that?) Nothing. So if "all systems allowed" tourneys exist on BBO, why is anyone who wants to play in that sort of tournament complaining about the ACBL or any other SO not holding tourneys like that? > they prefer > to impose their idea of fun and enjoyment on everyone. > Thou shalt not use encrypted signals. Period. Even if your > opponents would like to play against this method. > This totalitarian state of mind is what I vehimently > object to - uniformization sucks. Diversity rulez. I don't know where this garbage about "totalitarian states of mind" comes from. The ACBL is a business. If they believed it was worth their while and profitable to provide an anything-goes tournament, I see no reason to believe they wouldn't. I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest that they wouldn't---but they wouldn't go out of their way to try to set up something like that if there's very little demand for it. At the moment, the vast majority of their customers seem happy with the current situation, and are OK with or even prefer some of the more unusual conventions being banned. My suggestion: If you want to see a tournament with unrestricted conventions, convince your SO it's worth their while. You'll probably need to get a fairly large number of people to commit themselves in advance to playing in a tournament, so that the SO doesn't have to worry about spending big bucks for a hotel ballroom (plus directorial staff, whatever other administrative expenses are needed, etc.) and having six people show up. But I don't see the ACBL or any other SO as being so dictatorial-minded that they would turn down that sort of opportunity, if they could be convinced that it was worthwhile. On the other hand, if you prefer to simply expect your SO to provide that kind of tournament for you because you'd like to play in one, and then complain that they must be pig-headed totalitarians who hate diversity when they don't, that option is available too. > PS I fell in love with strong pass systems not because > they create chaos at the table but because of something exactly > opposite - their internal logic, aesthetic and logical construction, > and a plethora of very interesting, non-trivial tactical problems > they create at the table. If your idea of the strong pass systems > is "putting the chesspieces on the board and having fun with > the pieces" then I am afraid it is a far from the truth as > it can possibly be. I wasn't talking about strong pass systems or any other system per se. I was talking about a tournament where half the players were playing some artificial system that they didn't know how to use. At least, that's the impression I got from how you described it. -- Adam From tzimnoch at comcast.net Thu Jul 20 02:39:12 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Jul 20 02:41:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <200607192312.QAA13781@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200607192312.QAA13781@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <44BED0B0.3090406@comcast.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > So if "all systems allowed" tourneys exist on BBO, why is > anyone who wants to play in that sort of tournament complaining about > the ACBL or any other SO not holding tourneys like that? Because people frequently form opinions from incomplete or even incorrect information. The ACBL asserts a position that certain systems are not allowed at its tournaments because they are destructive. For some people that may be sufficient evidence of truth. -Todd From guthrie at ntlworld.com Thu Jul 20 03:34:16 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Thu Jul 20 03:34:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals References: <200607192312.QAA13781@mailhub.irvine.com> <44BED0B0.3090406@comcast.net> Message-ID: <001801c6ab9c$9e3bb9c0$0f9468d5@jeushtlj> [Adam Beneschan] > So if "all systems allowed" tourneys exist on > BBO, why is anyone who wants to play in that > sort of tournament complaining about the ACBL > or any other SO not holding tourneys like > that? [nige1] In most UK events, your choice of methods is restricted. Few pairs can afford the time to learn superior methods which they can practice in only a few events. IMO, those who play in more permissive jurisdictions not only enjoy a better and more popular game; but also they gain an advantage in International competition. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jul 20 04:23:36 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Jul 20 04:25:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <200607182235.k6IMZelj019905@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200607182235.k6IMZelj019905@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44BEE928.2030803@cfa.harvard.edu> >> http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html > From: Alain Gottcheiner > This is of course excellent procedure, if followed properly. It is the > suggested procedure in Belgium. > But its drabback is the same as for other suggestions that have been made > here : the player using the Stop card will be influenced by his hand or the > meaning of the bid, letting the Stop card lie on the table a long or short > time. And this will transmit UI. I've played at a club that used this procedure, and it was vastly better than current ACBL practice. I'm sure the problems Alain cites can arise, but they seem smaller than what we now have in the ACBL. All too few players wait at all after skip bids -- except for the one time they really do have a problem. And after all, after 1NT-P-3NT-, is it really so bad if the 3NT bidder takes the stop card back after 4-5 s instead of the official 10? From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jul 20 04:45:55 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Jul 20 04:47:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Re: who should know which rules?[was:AtlantaNABCAppealN-03] In-Reply-To: <200607182236.k6IMaBXZ019954@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200607182236.k6IMaBXZ019954@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44BEEE63.5060004@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > The commas before and after 'touching or nearly > touching the table' indicate it to be a qualification > of 'held face up'; I disagree with Eric's assertion > as to the effect of the comma. There are at least three ways L45C2 can be read, all grammatically correct. Nigel has pointed out the ambiguity of 'held' and Eric the ambiguity of whether the phrase in commas is a qualifier (as Grattan says and as I am sure was intended) or the second of a series of three phrases. I think what is intended might be: Declarer must play a card from his hand if he holds it face up touching or nearly touching the table or if he maintains it in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. Declarer is not required to play a card taken from and returned to his hand in a continuous motion or a card dropped or exposed accidentally. (It isn't very easy to write unambiguously, as I found when trying to phrase the above! Let's have some sympathy for the drafters. The second half of the last sentence is copied from L48A; perhaps a cross-reference would be useful even if the exact words aren't added here.) As a coincidence, I just benefitted from a ruling on this subject at the Chicago NABC. As declarer, I dropped a card accidentally. Unfortunately it was in the suit that had been led, so would have been a legal (though unwise) play. At first the TD ruled that I had to play the card, despite the opponents agreeing that it was dropped accidentally. The TD had no law book in evidence, but when I asked him to please check the ruling in the book, he produced a book from his pants pocket, eventually (after several minutes, during which we went on with the next deal) emerging with the correct ruling from L48A. The opponents were incensed, stating that the ruling was "against all the principles of duplicate bridge" or words to that effect. My guess is that both TDs and players are now over-sensitized to the Vancouver ruling. From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Thu Jul 20 04:52:42 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu Jul 20 04:54:27 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 In-Reply-To: <200607182311.k6INB0xW023037@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200607182311.k6INB0xW023037@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44BEEFFA.3080307@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "David Barton" > Let us suppose West made one of the following statements:- ... I think my criterion would be whether the word "revoke" or a very near synonym had passed someone's lips or not. Asking questions or mentioning an unspecified irregularity wouldn't be enough in my opinion. But I agree, there may be borderline cases where not everyone would rule the same. As others have pointed out, the OS cannot get out of the penalty by playing quickly to the next deal. Only the NOS can forfeit their own rights. If someone does call the TD without specifying a revoke, and then the NOS violate L9B2, I don't have any sympathy for them (though as others have also said, L64C still applies). From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Jul 20 10:29:39 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Jul 20 10:31:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) Message-ID: <20060720082939.69702461498@poczta.interia.pl> > > Konrad wrote: > > > You wouldn't like it - fine, you can > > play in your tournaments, I can play in mine and we can both enjoy it. > > So why is there almost no place in the > > world where you can participate in such an "everything goes" tournament > > > right now? > > Because bridge organisations introduced regulations that > > forbid this type of tourney - and that restriction has a total > > character. There is no single tournament in Poland > > (or France, or USA etc.) where you could play a forcing > > pass system any more (I am talking about tourneys > > where you play no more than 2 or 3 boards against other pairs) > > - such a tournament would be illegal under > > the systems policy that is currently in place here even if > > 100% of participants had no objections. This is what I call > > intoxication with power - why hasn't it even occurred > > to all these legislation committees in various bridge governing > > bodies that there are people who actually might *want* to play > > against pairs using encrypted signals? > > A club in the ACBL could hold its own tournament and allow encrypted > signals or any other convention that isn't allowed in any national > ACBL event. If so then please take ACBL out of this argument. I was under the impression that such a tournament would be illegal in ACBL. It certainly is in Poland - the Systems Policy applies here to every single tourney under the auspices of the Polish Bridge Union. > > And any organization can set up any tournament it wants with any > convention it wants to allow, if it didn't award ACBL masterpoints. Aha! Why wouldn't the ACBL award masterpoints for a "all systems go" tournament? Do they not consider it bridge? It is exactly the same thing here, in Poland you can run a tournament that allows all conventions but you would have to do it outside of the Polish Bridge Union. So you couldn't award masterpoints and PBU titles. If I run a tourney compliant with all the laws in TFLB and then why does my SO (and yours, too, and quite a few others) refuse to award masterpoints for it? I don't force anyone who hates everything unorthodox to play there - but yet I cannot award my SO masterpoints. I cannot understand that. Sure, the SO have the *right* to refuse awaring masterpoints that but I see absolutely no reason for them to take advantage of that right except for pure, gratuitous viciousness. > The ACBL couldn't do anything to stop them---nor, I believe, would > they particularly want to. If there really were enough people who > would play in such a tournament to make it profitable to hold one, why > hasn't someone? In Poland there *were* tournaments that were marketed as "all systems allowed". As they were being held every year I assume that they were profitable. One of the four biggest Polish congresses The Grand Prix Of Warsaw used to be martketed as a "no system restrictions" event. Now you won't find such a tourney any more because my SO outright banned them all. And my SO is not the only one that did that. > That's one of the reasons I'm rather cynical about > complaints about what the ACBL allows or doesn't allow. Lots of > people seem to argue that allowing unlimited conventions would get > young people interested and revitalize the game, but these same people > who are so very imaginative when it comes to dreaming up new and > interesting conventions can't seem to think outside of the box when it > comes to setting up a tournament where they and others like them could > have fun with them. They just expect the ACBL to provide it for them. > Either that, or there really aren't enough people with that sort of > interest to make a tournament like that feasible for the money. I > dunno. > > > > Instead of leaving as much freedom as possible to the organisers > > of various tournaments (which is essentially what is being > > done on BBO where "all systems allowed" and "Acol only" > > tourneys coexist - what is wrong with that?) > > Nothing. So if "all systems allowed" tourneys exist on BBO, why is > anyone who wants to play in that sort of tournament complaining about > the ACBL or any other SO not holding tourneys like that? Who is "anyone"? Certainly not me - all I am asking for is a chance to run a tourney, have the right to award my SO masterpoints and have it treated as any other tournament under the auspices of my SO. To compete on equal terms. > > > > they prefer > > to impose their idea of fun and enjoyment on everyone. > > Thou shalt not use encrypted signals. Period. Even if your > > opponents would like to play against this method. > > This totalitarian state of mind is what I vehimently > > object to - uniformization sucks. Diversity rulez. > > I don't know where this garbage about "totalitarian states of mind" > comes from. The ACBL is a business. If they believed it was worth > their while and profitable to provide an anything-goes tournament, I > see no reason to believe they wouldn't. I haven't seen any evidence > that would suggest that they wouldn't---but they wouldn't go out of > their way to try to set up something like that if there's very little > demand for it. At the moment, the vast majority of their customers > seem happy with the current situation, and are OK with or even prefer > some of the more unusual conventions being banned. > > My suggestion: If you want to see a tournament with unrestricted > conventions, convince your SO it's worth their while. This is why we will probably never agree. Why do I have to "convince" my SO about anything in order to just run a tourney? Why can't I simply go ahead and do it? If you want to run a tournament with systems restrictions you don't have to convince anyone in advance each time that this particular tournament is needed/good for bridge or whatever. You just run it for anyone who will bother to show up, award masterpoints and that's it. And yes, I have had my fair share of "convincing" my SO about lots of things - I publish in the "Brydz" magazine where I frequently write about things I'd like to see changed. But making an institution do anything is a daunting task - it takes a lot of effort, a lot time. > I wasn't talking about strong pass systems or any other system per se. > I was talking about a tournament where half the players were playing > some artificial system that they didn't know how to use. At least, > that's the impression I got from how you described it. The impression was correct. They had no idea what they were doing but not because of their systems but because the vast majority could barely play bridge. In an "all Acol" tournaments for novices the vast majority of participants haven't got a clue what is going on either. Experimenting with systems was just part of the learning process. To these people this game of bridge they have just discovered was more interesting because of the plethora of possibilities offered by bidding systems. __________________ Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland --------------------------------------------------------------------- Barbados za 73 grosze http://link.interia.pl/f197d From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Jul 20 13:12:43 2006 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu Jul 20 13:14:39 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <20060720082939.69702461498@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20060720082939.69702461498@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <7joub2903rp6piuu5nk24ejsfsjs41gmcm@meadows.pair.com> On 20 Jul 2006 10:29:39 +0200, Konrad wrote: > Adam (I think) wrote > >> The ACBL couldn't do anything to stop them---nor, I believe, would >> they particularly want to. If there really were enough people who >> would play in such a tournament to make it profitable to hold one, why >> hasn't someone? > >In Poland there *were* tournaments that were marketed >as "all systems allowed". As they were being held >every year I assume that they were profitable. >One of the four biggest Polish congresses The Grand Prix >Of Warsaw used to be martketed as a "no system restrictions" >event. Now you won't find such a tourney any more >because my SO outright banned them all. >And my SO is not the only one that did that. > I'll echo Konrad's view. Maybe the profit motive is a bit stronger in the USA than in some other countries, but I've experience of helping organise an inter-club tournament in one English county, and the organising club committee was then steamrollered by a member of the county committee into switching it from restricted licence to general licence *at 20 minutes notice* (general and restricted are more or less GCC and mid-chart in ACBL terminology). As the British readers of BLML will realise, this makes it a few years ago, but I doubt that attitudes have changed that much since I left the UK. The problem seems to me to be that the liking for experimenting with systems does seem to be predominantly with younger players, but in general they're not the ones on various committees, usually being more preoccupied with earning a living than organising tournaments or standing for NCBO (or County, in the UK) office. Brian. From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 20 18:01:21 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Jul 20 18:03:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids References: <200607182235.k6IMZelj019905@cfa.harvard.edu> <44BEE928.2030803@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001401c6ac15$be9b7e70$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:23 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Skip bids >>> http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html > >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> This is of course excellent procedure, if followed properly. It is the >> suggested procedure in Belgium. >> But its drabback is the same as for other suggestions that have been made >> here : the player using the Stop card will be influenced by his hand or >> the meaning of the bid, letting the Stop card lie on the table a long or >> short time. And this will transmit UI. > > I've played at a club that used this procedure, and it was vastly better > than current ACBL practice. I'm sure the problems Alain cites can arise, > but they seem smaller than what we now have in the ACBL. All too few > players wait at all after skip bids -- except for the one time they really > do have a problem. > > And after all, after 1NT-P-3NT-, is it really so bad if the 3NT bidder > takes the stop card back after 4-5 s instead of the official 10? Certainly is. Kx xxx xxxx xxxx. Partner ethically waits for the full 10 seconds and you put the SK on the deck. cheers john > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Jul 20 18:05:39 2006 From: john at asimere.com (John Probst) Date: Thu Jul 20 18:07:25 2006 Subject: [blml] L64B4 References: <200607182311.k6INB0xW023037@cfa.harvard.edu> <44BEEFFA.3080307@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001b01c6ac16$58571d80$0701a8c0@john> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L64B4 >> From: "David Barton" >> Let us suppose West made one of the following statements:- > ... > > I think my criterion would be whether the word "revoke" or a very near > synonym had passed someone's lips or not. Asking questions or mentioning > an unspecified irregularity wouldn't be enough in my opinion. But I agree, > there may be borderline cases where not everyone would rule the same. > > As others have pointed out, the OS cannot get out of the penalty by > playing quickly to the next deal. Only the NOS can forfeit their own > rights. If someone does call the TD without specifying a revoke, and then > the NOS violate L9B2, I don't have any sympathy for them (though as others > have also said, L64C still applies). uhuh, the Probst cheat knows if he makes a call the next player will do so too, even though the "How many diamonds" discussion is continuing. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Thu Jul 20 18:50:38 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Thu Jul 20 18:57:57 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <200607192312.QAA13781@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <200607201650.k6KGocXJ010912@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Adam Beneschan writes: > > A club in the ACBL could hold its own tournament and allow encrypted > signals or any other convention that isn't allowed in any national > ACBL event. > > And any organization can set up any tournament it wants with any > convention it wants to allow, if it didn't award ACBL masterpoints. > The ACBL couldn't do anything to stop them---nor, I believe, would > they particularly want to. If there really were enough people who > would play in such a tournament to make it profitable to hold one, why > hasn't someone? For what it's worth, many years ago the club I play at announced the intention to hold regular "anything goes" games. Came the first one there were only two pairs (not sure if Tony Edwards is still lurking here, but he and I were one of the pairs -- intending to play a big pass/relay) interested. Idea dead in the water. From mustikka at charter.net Thu Jul 20 19:03:55 2006 From: mustikka at charter.net (raija) Date: Thu Jul 20 19:05:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060720082939.69702461498@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000701c6ac1e$7ccbdf90$f4150947@DFYXB361> (snipped bunches) Adam: > And any organization can set up any tournament it wants with any > convention it wants to allow, if it didn't award ACBL masterpoints. Konrad: Aha! Why wouldn't the ACBL award masterpoints for a "all systems go" tournament? Do they not consider it bridge? It is exactly the same thing here, in Poland you can run a tournament that allows all conventions but you would have to do it outside of the Polish Bridge Union. So you couldn't award masterpoints and PBU titles. If I run a tourney compliant with all the laws in TFLB and then why does my SO (and yours, too, and quite a few others) refuse to award masterpoints for it? Me: If, as Konrad said, it is so much FUN to play in and defend against unfamiliar territory, and the FUN is important, then get the FUN and play as often as you like on BBO/OKB/SWAN etc, at home, in the local club. I think (though of course I am trying to read minds here, perhaps unsuccessfully) part of the FUN seems to be to puzzle, surprise, and trick the opponents who don't have arsenal to use against the unfamiliar or who do not know all the inferences behind each action in an unfamiliar method even if the meaning of a particular single call or calls is fully explained. However, Konrad wants masterpoints. It will be, just as in any circumstance, a matter of priorities. When I want the experiment-FUN, I play where such experiments are allowed. When I want masterpoints-FUN, I play where masterpoints are awarded. Can't have it all in one place. Konrad: all I am asking for is a chance to run a tourney, have the right to award my SO masterpoints and have it treated as any other tournament under the auspices of my SO. To compete on equal terms. Me: "Equal terms" as I explained above, is not going to happen when the method is so unfamiliar to the opponents that they cannot draw inferences to complete the picture of the auction. Konrad: And yes, I have had my fair share of "convincing" my SO about lots of things - I publish in the "Brydz" magazine where I frequently write about things I'd like to see changed. But making an institution do anything is a daunting task - it takes a lot of effort, a lot time. Me: Couldn't it instead be as simple as, the majority prefers some restrictions on systems, to be able to function intelligently and reasonably at the table, within the limited round time in tournaments? If you can provide evidence that the majority wants unrestricted systems in tournaments, I am 100% sure your SO or any other SO who gets that evidence, will immediately grab the opportunity and add such an event in their tournament schedules. From svenpran at online.no Thu Jul 20 19:44:43 2006 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu Jul 20 19:46:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <001401c6ac15$be9b7e70$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <000001c6ac24$2f031890$6400a8c0@WINXP> > On Behalf Of John Probst .............. > > And after all, after 1NT-P-3NT-, is it really so bad if the 3NT bidder > > takes the stop card back after 4-5 s instead of the official 10? > > Certainly is. Kx xxx xxxx xxxx. Partner ethically waits for the full 10 > seconds and you put the SK on the deck. cheers john Having the opening lead after _that_ auction I would feel insane if I didn't lead the SK, BIT or no BIT. Sven From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Jul 20 20:01:16 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Thu Jul 20 20:03:54 2006 Subject: [blml] nearest card In-Reply-To: <001b01c6aa4c$302c8be0$0701a8c0@john> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060717104009.02769510@pop.ulb.ac.be><1G2VPy-1kNk9I0@fwd28.aul.t-online.de><003301c6a9c4$30e78040$219868d5@jeushtlj> <001b01c6a9f2$e1925040$1ad9403e@Mildred> <001b01c6aa4c$302c8be0$0701a8c0@john> Message-ID: <1926196f920492435a3ebda15bd1c2d5@smtp.realdsl.be> John, I wanted to react to Grattan as well, but then I thought again. Your counterexample is not the similar. If you, as declarer, say "rightmost suit", then you have played (spades?). The decision to play spades was not made because they were on the right. But if Alain's partner decides she wants to signal spades and in order to do so she has to play the D7 because clubs are nearest, then she has used the place of the clubs in order to decide to play the D7. As such, Grattan's argument is valid. I'm not saying that this is a final argument, but I like Ton's "we think you're doing this only to make life more difficult to your opponents, therefor we wish to ban this". I'm quite certain the laws authorize SO's to ban things like this. Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Probst" To: , "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 01:25 PM Subject: [blml] nearest card ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] nearest card > > Grattan Endicott [also grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk] > ***************************************** > "The true genius is a mind of large general powers, accidentally > determined to some > particular direction." > ~ Dr. Samuel Johnson. > ===================================== > +=+ I doubt that the order of the suits laid out in dummy is embraced in > "the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal." (Law 75A). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Really Grattan, you are being obtuse. Can I not say "Rightmost suit?" It's clearly a condition of the current deal. I am alarmed that ton feels he can forbid the method. I am inclined to Nigels's view that one can ban a method that is too complex in the same way as one can ban encrypted signals but this method is harmless. cheers John From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 20:32:18 2006 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu Jul 20 20:34:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <44bd3100.6d544455.391e.fffff39bSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.gmail.com> References: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl> <44bd3100.6d544455.391e.fffff39bSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560607201132h4c67b726r9076c0dfe3c62dd6@mail.gmail.com> On 19/07/06, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Really Grattan, you are being obtuse. Can I not say "Rightmost suit?" It's > > > > > > clearly a condition of the current deal. I am alarmed that ton feels he > > > can > > > forbid the method. I am inclined to Nigels's view that one can ban a > > > method > > > that is too complex in the same way as one can ban encrypted signals > > > > In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were banned > > for no other reason than intoxication with power of bridge > > organisations. How can a method as simple as "if my partner > > has an odd number of hearts then we use upsided down carding" > > be too complex? Well, it is no more complex than the game > > of bridge itself. > > > > __________________ > > Konrad Ciborowski > > Krak?w, Poland > > > > > This is the answer of somebody who prefers shouting above thinking. > > The reason was not the complexity, though it would have been a good enough > reason. The reason was that declarer can't figure out what the meaning of > the signal is. Meaning understood as bearing useful information. > > > > Let me give another example: both defenders are autistic and able to > multiply many huge numbers. So they give the cards shown in dummy a big > number and multiply and depending on the outcome, last two digits between > 1-50 or 51 ? 00 or whatever, the card they play is dis- or en-couraging. It > is all on their convention cards. > > > > Acceptable in your world, not in mine. It depends on the way you look at our > game. Mine being more sane than yours, I dare to say. > Players with better mental skills than others are not allowed to use those skills. You say that is more sane. I think you kid yourself. Wayne From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Jul 20 21:14:07 2006 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu Jul 20 21:16:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060720082939.69702461498@poczta.interia.pl> <000701c6ac1e$7ccbdf90$f4150947@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <000b01c6ac30$b796f850$0f181d53@k827b8a5159344> ----- Original Message ----- From: "raija" > (though of course I am trying to read minds here, perhaps unsuccessfully) > part of the FUN seems to be to puzzle, surprise, and trick the opponents > who don't have arsenal to use against the unfamiliar or who do not know > all the inferences behind each action in an unfamiliar method even if the > meaning of a particular single call or calls is fully explained. No, you are not trying to read minds here. You are trying to offend me by implying malicious intentions behind my actions. > > However, Konrad wants masterpoints. It will be, just as in any > circumstance, a matter of priorities. When I want the experiment-FUN, I > play where such experiments are allowed. When I want masterpoints-FUN, I > play where masterpoints are awarded. Can't have it all in one place. Why? > > Konrad: > all I am asking for is > a chance to run a tourney, have the right to award my > SO masterpoints and have it treated as any other > tournament under the auspices of my SO. > To compete on equal terms. > > Me: > "Equal terms" as I explained above, is not going to happen when the method > is so unfamiliar to the opponents that they cannot draw inferences to > complete the picture of the auction. Excuse me - what are you talking about? If I announce well in advance that I am going to run a tourney with no systems restrictions and everybody who shows up is well aware that he will meet exotic systems and still wants to participate then what kind of unfamiliarity are you referring to? Believe me - there are people who actually enjoy playing against new systems. And who have generic defenses to cope with them even if they meet them for the first time. There aren't a lot of such people but if you run your tournament and I run mine, and we both announce the CoC in advance, we both comply to laws in TFLB and we both deliver the moneys from the entry fee to our SO then why you should have the right to award masterpoints and I shouldn't? Just because you have more pairs in the room? You are assuming all the time that I want to force people like you to play in my tourney. I don't. If you haven't understood that much after so many posts I wrote then I might as well stop trying because appearently my abilities to make my points clear are not very good. > > Konrad: > And yes, I have had my fair share of "convincing" my SO > about lots of things - I publish in the "Brydz" magazine > where I frequently write about things I'd like to see > changed. But making an institution do anything is > a daunting task - it takes a lot of effort, a lot > time. > > Me: > Couldn't it instead be as simple as, the majority prefers some > restrictions on systems, to be able to function intelligently and > reasonably at the table, within the limited round time in tournaments? Oh, I see. Because the majority prefers to watch football over voleyball then all voleyball games should be outlawed. Yeah, right. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 21 08:43:07 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Jul 21 08:54:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl><44bd3100.6d544455.391e.fffff39bSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560607201132h4c67b726r9076c0dfe3c62dd6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a601c6ac91$29c77250$84cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Who built Thebes of the seven gates? In the books you will find the names of kings, Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock? Where, the evening that the Wall of China was finished Did the masons go?" (Bertolt Brecht) ----------------------------------------------- +=+ The international Systems Policy committees that I have attended include a high proportion of eminent players of reputed quality in their numbers. If players who would be best fitted to cope with the method think it undesirable in international tournaments their judgement should perhaps be respected. My personal view is that it may well be appropriate to allow methods that are mostly disallowed in some esoteric events. I believe it is for tournament organizers to decide what they will allow in their tournaments, that they are entitled to proprietorial management of them. Proprietors tend to be subservient to the laws of supply and demand. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) > Players with better mental skills than others are not allowed to use those skills. You say that is more sane. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 21 09:32:59 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jul 21 09:34:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060707110207.02a27eb0@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Eric Landau: >.....Playing ..... one of only touching cards, from >the dummy before declarer calls is the habit of an >individual, not a partnership. ..... > >In my experience, though, it's such a common >practice and so generally innocuous that it would >warrant a penalty only in very unusual >circumstances ..... Richard Hills: If dummy always plays the _lower_ of two touching cards without instruction from declarer, then dummy is providing assistance in the play to a possibly forgetful declarer. It is easier for declarer in the endgame to forget that a jack is a winner, but to remember that a king is a winner. Ergo, it seems to me that such a habit by dummy is a non-innocuous infraction of Law 43A1(c). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 21 11:20:27 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Jul 21 11:31:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Revoke established? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001c01c6aca7$12342140$77bf87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Who built Thebes of the seven gates? In the books you will find the names of kings, Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock? Where, the evening that the Wall of China was finished Did the masons go?" (Bertolt Brecht) ----------------------------------------------- +=+ Or, it might be said, obnoxious. +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Revoke established? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > a non-innocuous infraction of Law 43A1(c). > From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jul 21 01:03:22 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Jul 21 12:47:11 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <200607201650.k6KGocXJ010912@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <001601c6acb2$ea29c540$0c9868d5@jeushtlj> [Ron Johnson] > For what it's worth, many years ago the club I > play at announced the intention to hold regular > "anything goes" games. Came the first one there > were only two pairs (not sure if Tony Edwards > is still lurking here, but he and I were one of > the pairs -- intending to play a big pass/relay) > interested. Idea dead in the water. [nige1] Every fortnight, Reading (UK) Bridge Club runs an unrestricted tournament. Well -- I'm unsure if "anything goes" but certainly forcing pass, medium pass, and hybrid club systems are welcome. Reading Bridge Club is pretty tolerant for all its competitions and its members appreciate the freedom. People introduce weird systems, even on beginner's nights and nobody objects. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jul 21 13:20:36 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Jul 21 13:21:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl><44bd3100.6d544455.391e.fffff39bSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.gmail.com><2a1c3a560607201132h4c67b726r9076c0dfe3c62dd6@mail.gmail.com> <00a601c6ac91$29c77250$84cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <002e01c6acb7$b0d6d620$0c9868d5@jeushtlj> You lead the ace from C:AQ932, dummy plays small from 865, partner follows, and declarer shows out. Now, partner is known to have started with C:KJT74. You can each play your remaining clubs in 4! different orders each conveying 24 different messages, most of which will be hard for declarer to read. How much lee-way are you allowed in using these communication possibilities? (in the EBU say). I'm certain that experienced defenders already use many different subtle signals in such contexts. If it is illegal to do this deliberately in some jurisdictions, then many top pairs will find it hard not to cheat. IMO you can't get near to enforcing a ban on such "encrypted" signals (if encrypted merely means that the messages are more easily read by defenders, as Grattan implies). What legislators can do is to insist that their *basis* is simple and is divulged to declarer. Unfortunately, however, declarer will often still be unable to decipher them. This is implicit in the game and unavoidable. Notice that often (for example when an defender shows out), the boot is on the other foot. Now it is *declarer* who can more easily read (and disrupt) signals in that suit. Please will somebody allay my fears that legislators are again trying to bite off more than they can chew? From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Jul 21 15:24:40 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri Jul 21 15:26:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <002e01c6acb7$b0d6d620$0c9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <20060718095210.D30D2B899@poczta.interia.pl><44bd3100.6d544455.3 91e.fffff39bSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.gmail.com><2a1c3a560607201132h4c67b726r9076c0df e3c62dd6@mail.gmail.com><00a601c6ac91$29c77250$84cb87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> <002e01c6acb7$b0d6d620$0c9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <44C0D598.3090402@meteo.fr> Guthrie a ?crit : > You lead the ace from C:AQ932, dummy plays small > from 865, partner follows, and declarer shows out. > Now, partner is known to have started with > C:KJT74. You can each play your remaining clubs in > 4! different orders each conveying 24 different > messages, most of which will be hard for declarer > to read. > > How much lee-way are you allowed in using these > communication possibilities? (in the EBU say). who knows? at a time wher everything is more or less restricted. > > I'm certain that experienced defenders already use > many different subtle signals in such contexts. If > it is illegal to do this deliberately in some > jurisdictions, then many top pairs will find it > hard not to cheat. i use to give preferential signals, by playing only "middle" cards in order not to make life easy for declarer and probably i also am a cheat. > > IMO you can't get near to enforcing a ban on such > "encrypted" signals (if encrypted merely means > that the messages are more easily read by > defenders, as Grattan implies). i already said "encrypted" is not the adequate word for such signals (maybe conditional or intricate or multi-stage) bu it's only a point of detail. > > What legislators can do is to insist that their > *basis* is simple and is divulged to declarer. > > Unfortunately, however, declarer will often still > be unable to decipher them. This is implicit in > the game and unavoidable. > > Notice that often (for example when an defender > shows out), the boot is on the other foot. Now it > is *declarer* who can more easily read (and > disrupt) signals in that suit. > > Please will somebody allay my fears that > legislators are again trying to bite off more than > they can chew? i think all this mess results from a broad incomprehension of what is full disclosure. at the opposite of chess where all players have a complete information of the state of the game, in bridge, players have incomplete and different information. those who insist on defenders explaining to declarer the content of the signal instead of the basis, are the same that ask about an alerted bid: "how do you interpret..." instead of "what are your agreements about...". jpr > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ac342 at freenet.carleton.ca Fri Jul 21 19:03:36 2006 From: ac342 at freenet.carleton.ca (Tony Edwards) Date: Fri Jul 21 19:05:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <200607201650.k6KGocXJ010912@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <008101c6ace7$ac03f080$9dcafea9@ac342> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) > Adam Beneschan writes: > > > > A club in the ACBL could hold its own tournament and allow encrypted > > signals or any other convention that isn't allowed in any national > > ACBL event. > > > > And any organization can set up any tournament it wants with any > > convention it wants to allow, if it didn't award ACBL masterpoints. > > The ACBL couldn't do anything to stop them---nor, I believe, would > > they particularly want to. If there really were enough people who > > would play in such a tournament to make it profitable to hold one, why > > hasn't someone? > > For what it's worth, many years ago the club I play at announced > the intention to hold regular "anything goes" games. > > Came the first one there were only two pairs (not sure if > Tony Edwards is still lurking here, but he and I were one of the > pairs -- intending to play a big pass/relay) interested. > Idea dead in the water. > Ya, I'm still here. I'm still disappointed that the idea didn't fly. The club I'm director/manager of (one day a week, church basement--but 22-26 tables per week!) has a play what you want policy, superchart+, have a defence available ...but hardly anyone uses anything but GCC. :-( (or :-) , depending on how you look at things). With special games like STACs, ACBL-wide charity, ect. we have to "dumb-down" the game to GCC. This always gets grumbles from the handfull who do enjoy less orthodox methods. Do those who use less orthodox methods have an advantage? Not that I can find: year after blood-soaked year, the good, solid bidders/declarers/defenders seem to relentlessly cream the other players no matter what they play. Tony (aka ac342) ps. as for the topic at hand, I think encrypted signals should be permitted, (I mean, what's the big deal?) but it's up to the SO. From johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Jul 21 20:58:55 2006 From: johnson at CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri Jul 21 21:06:18 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <008101c6ace7$ac03f080$9dcafea9@ac342> Message-ID: <200607211858.k6LIwthP020190@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Tony Edwards writes: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Johnson" > To: > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:50 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) > > > > Adam Beneschan writes: > > > > > > A club in the ACBL could hold its own tournament and allow encrypted > > > signals or any other convention that isn't allowed in any national > > > ACBL event. > > > > > > And any organization can set up any tournament it wants with any > > > convention it wants to allow, if it didn't award ACBL masterpoints. > > > The ACBL couldn't do anything to stop them---nor, I believe, would > > > they particularly want to. If there really were enough people who > > > would play in such a tournament to make it profitable to hold one, why > > > hasn't someone? > > > > For what it's worth, many years ago the club I play at announced > > the intention to hold regular "anything goes" games. > > > > Came the first one there were only two pairs (not sure if > > Tony Edwards is still lurking here, but he and I were one of the > > pairs -- intending to play a big pass/relay) interested. > > Idea dead in the water. > > > Ya, I'm still here. I'm still disappointed that the idea didn't fly. The > club I'm director/manager of (one day a week, church basement--but 22-26 > tables per week!) has a play what you want policy, superchart+, have a > defence available Glad to hear that it's working out. My problem with Adam's argument is that you can find the exact same arguments being raised for all aspects of Roth/Stone (including 2/1, forcing NT) and ... well I've never encountered any article complaining about takeout doubles (though there are huge numbers of articles against negative doubles, five card majors. You name it and somebody railed against it) > ...but hardly > anyone uses anything but GCC. :-( (or :-) , depending on how you look at > things). With special games like STACs, ACBL-wide charity, ect. we have to > "dumb-down" the game to GCC. This always gets grumbles from the handfull who > do enjoy less orthodox methods. > Do those who use less orthodox methods have an advantage? Not that I can > find: I'll go further. In my experience I gain from players adopting complex methods that they haven't fully thought out or mastered -- even granting all of the disclosure issues. > year after blood-soaked year, the good, solid bidders/declarers/defenders > seem to relentlessly cream the other players no matter what they play. > > > ps. as for the topic at hand, I think encrypted signals should be permitted, > (I mean, what's the big deal?) Dunno. But the whole Balicki/Zmudzinski mess at Albuquerque shows the *potential* for really ugly situations. (Though they weren't precisely playing encrypted signals, the meaning of their carding changed according to "bridge logic") And how good directors can eventually require players to meet their disclosure obligations. Don't know how the situation(s) would have played out if the director(s?) had been less capabable. > but it's up to the SO. From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Fri Jul 21 22:01:12 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri Jul 21 22:03:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <200607211858.k6LIwthP020190@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200607211858.k6LIwthP020190@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: On Jul 21, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > I'll go further. In my experience I gain from players adopting complex > methods that they haven't fully thought out or mastered -- even > granting > all of the disclosure issues. "thought out" I'll give ya. In fact, "gain" I'll give ya. But one of the problems I have with people who complain that somebody or other hasn't "mastered" some convention is, well, how long have they been playing it, and in how many games? A while back, my then partner and I decided to try Romex. We had some successes (and some screw ups :) in the first couple of months (playing once a week), but then we had to abandon it because the (*&^(*& club owners around here wouldn't let us play the Dynamic NT, which is (a) an integral part of the system and (b) GCC legal. So we never had a chance to master it. I dunno *what* would happen if somebody took up a Mid-chart convention. Probably a hanging. From adam at irvine.com Fri Jul 21 22:59:44 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jul 21 23:01:33 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:58:55 EDT." <200607211858.k6LIwthP020190@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <200607212047.NAA01920@mailhub.irvine.com> Ron Johnson wrote: > My problem with Adam's argument is that you can find the exact same > arguments being raised for all aspects of Roth/Stone (including > 2/1, forcing NT) and ... well I've never encountered any article > complaining about takeout doubles (though there are huge numbers of > articles against negative doubles, five card majors. You name it and > somebody railed against it) I'm not so sure, partly because I'm not even sure what my argument is. Mostly, I jumped into this thread because somebody seemed to think the only reason for banning encrypted signals (and a lot of other unusual conventions, it seemed to me) was a Totalitarian Mindset or something like that. To me, that's a very serious charge that seemed to be made unjustly. I don't know what restrictions on agreements may or may not be good for the game. Hopefully, I haven't claimed to know. But I think my main argument is that (1) it's perfectly legitimate for those in charge to make such decisions based on what they think their customers at large want; (2) there's nothing *inherently* wrong or contrary to the nature of "Bridge" for them to do so; (3) there's no _a priori_ reason to believe, based on logic alone, that removing all restrictions on agreements will lead to "good". Apparently those in charge have, for whatever reasons, ultimately felt that allowing Roth/Stone would not be harmful to their purposes (despite what those who railed about it said), while allowing certain other conventions (like forcing-pass systems) would. The fact that the decision went one way in one case and another way in another case doesn't hurt my position at all. I hope this clarifies things, but I doubt it. -- Adam From guthrie at ntlworld.com Fri Jul 21 23:49:41 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Fri Jul 21 23:50:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <00f801c6aa8d$cc2ab760$0a9468d5@jeushtlj><200607191505.IAA09502@mailhub.irvine.com> <2da24b8e0607190912y5e2e5ed8m689c30bee34ae6e1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002b01c6ad0f$9296aa20$0c9468d5@jeushtlj> [richard willey] > The second option is to try to achieve the same > end through the legislative process. Pass a > series of laws intended to make the world > safe for bad bidding systems. There are two > problems with this approach: First, I'd argue > that this destroys the much of the > aesthetics of the game. Equally significant - > and much less subject - People aren't good at > writing comprehensive legal systems. In > particular, if you go and protect a set of > suboptimal bidding methods you create a powerful > incentive for folks to screw with the system. > In theory, all the folks out there are trying to > win. In turn, this means that there are a lot of > folks who are going to be picking over your legal > system trying to find flaws that they can exploit. > The ugliest incidents of all crop up when folks > raised in a sterile little bubble suddenly > encounter something nasty that has slipped in from > outside... [nige1] I agree with Richard for similar reasons... [A] It's hard to frame sensible rules to guard against Bridge innovation. [B] For example, It's quite hard to rule against so-called "Encryption" without outlawing "standard" signals in common contexts where defenders cannot help knowing more than declarer. [C] It's hard to enforce such rules. [D] Such laws are especially tough on experienced players who suddenly realise that they've unwittingly been breaking the law for decades. [E] It's tempting for rebels to continue breaking the law, because it is unlikely to be detected unless they disclose it. [F] Rules and interpretations vary between different legislators and even within the same country, without rhyme or reason. So it's hard for players to comply. [G] Such laws do seem unnecessary. [H] To protect an aging minority (who probably neither need nor want such condescension), you alienate younger new players. [I] There is no need to choose. As Adam Beneschan and others have pointed out: sponsors could easily follow the BBO example: run both open and simple-system competitions to please everybody. From siegmund at gci.net Sat Jul 22 05:39:19 2006 From: siegmund at gci.net (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat Jul 22 05:41:09 2006 Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement Message-ID: We need a break from encrypted signals arguments, so let's go back to an old standby, the boundary between careless and irrational. Dealer West, both sides vul, IMPs (if that matters to you.) T97 K K7432 T932 AKJ4 Q6 J6 Q98742 AQ95 8 AJ8 K754 8532 AT53 JT6 Q6 Bidding: 2NT, 3D transfer, 3H, 4H. 1: CT,4,6,J 2: S4,7,Q,2 3: H2,3,J,K 4: C3,5,Q,A 5: H6,D2,H4,HT 6: D6,DA At this point declarer claims 6 of the remaining 7 tricks. NS look at him expectantly and he says "all tops" or something like that. I don't think anyone believes West has miscounted the trumps -- but he has not shown any awareness of the fact that he has several different ways of entering dummy, which are not guaranteed to be successful. Do you allow him to make, or do you impose entering dummy with CK, ruffed? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jul 22 06:08:02 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Jul 22 06:11:03 2006 Subject: [blml] claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200607101407.HAA20430@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Peter Newman: [big snip] >By law I claim when I should - this is often well >before the defenders understand the claim. [snip] >I have illegally stopped claiming against pairs I >judge are like this until I can point to either >my hand or dummy being high. Maybe that is the >best solution in this case? [big snip] Richard Hills: I agree with Peter's solution of deferring claims in accordance with an assessment of the analytical skills of the opponents. However, I disagree with Peter's interpretation of Law which argues that his solution is illegal. The relevant Law is Law 74B4: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent." A correct parsing of this Law shows that it is *not* an infraction to prolong play unnecessarily if the purpose of the prolongation is to *avoid* disconcerting any opponent who would fail to understand a statement such as, "I claim on a simultaneous double squeeze." :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jul 22 07:08:56 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Jul 22 07:11:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted overcall (was signals) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44C0D598.3090402@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Jean-Pierre Rocafort: >I think all this mess results from a broad incomprehension of >what is full disclosure. At the opposite of chess where all >players have a complete information of the state of the game, >in bridge, players have incomplete and different information. > >Those who insist on defenders explaining to declarer the >content of the signal instead of the basis, are the same that >ask about an alerted bid: "how do you interpret...?" instead >of "what are your agreements about...?". Richard Hills: In Australia generally, and in Canberra in particular, the brown-sticker convention RCO Two Bids is widely played (even by little old ladies). 2H = weak, 5/5 same Rank (either majors or minors) 2S = weak, 5/5 same Colour (either reds or blacks) 2NT = weak, 5/5 same Odd (either pointed or rounded) One of the more idiosyncratic Canberra players has devised a counter-convention when an opponent opens an RCO Two Bid of 2H or 2S. His partnership agreement is that his 2NT overcall shows 5/5 in the other two suits. This somewhat disconcerts the LOL partners of the RCO Two Bidder, so the LOL partners ask as to which are the other two suits that the 2NT overcall shows. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sat Jul 22 07:40:44 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Sat Jul 22 07:43:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower: Dealer West, both sides vul, IMPs (if that matters to you.) T97 K K7432 T932 AKJ4 Q6 J6 Q98742 AQ95 8 AJ8 K754 8532 AT53 JT6 Q6 Bidding: 2NT, 3D transfer, 3H, 4H. 1: CT,4,6,J 2: S4,7,Q,2 3: H2,3,J,K 4: C3,5,Q,A 5: H6,D2,H4,HT 6: D6,DA At this point declarer claims 6 of the remaining 7 tricks. NS look at him expectantly and he says "all tops" or something like that. I don't think anyone believes West has miscounted the trumps -- but he has not shown any awareness of the fact that he has several different ways of entering dummy, which are not guaranteed to be successful. Do you allow him to make, or do you impose entering dummy with CK, ruffed? * * * Richard Hills: It seems to me that declarer could indeed have miscounted trumps, and think that the only defensive trump outstanding was the master ace of trumps. Trick five is consistent with declarer testing whether the defenders' "four" trumps broke "two-two". Therefore, I do impose the normal, careless and inferior play of the king of clubs. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Sat Jul 22 14:21:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Sat Jul 22 14:23:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gordon Bower wrote: > > We need a break from encrypted signals arguments, so let's go back to > an old standby, the boundary between careless and irrational. > > Dealer West, both sides vul, IMPs (if that matters to you.) > > T97 > K > K7432 > T932 > AKJ4 Q6 > J6 Q98742 > AQ95 8 > AJ8 K754 > 8532 > AT53 > JT6 > Q6 > > Bidding: 2NT, 3D transfer, 3H, 4H. > > 1: CT,4,6,J > 2: S4,7,Q,2 > 3: H2,3,J,K > 4: C3,5,Q,A > 5: H6,D2,H4,HT > 6: D6,DA > > At this point declarer claims 6 of the remaining 7 tricks. > NS look at him expectantly and he says "all tops" or something like > that. > I don't think anyone believes West has miscounted the trumps -- but > he has not shown any awareness of the fact that he has several > different ways of entering dummy, which are not guaranteed to be > successful. > > Do you allow him to make, or do you impose entering dummy with CK, > ruffed? No. I think he might ruff a D to dummy, force out HA, win the S return, ruff a D to dummy, draw the last trump and then start wondering what to do about the C7. I might rule differently depending on what was actually said at the time of the claim statement. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Sat Jul 22 18:45:43 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Sat Jul 22 18:46:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings Message-ID: <001b01c6adae$472ec500$019468d5@jeushtlj> Even if the rules were as objective, simple, clear, and complete as possible, examples of borderline rulings would still help directors, Unfortunately, many directors and law-makers seem to prefer incomplete sophisticated obfuscatory subjective laws, that over-rely on the director's judgement. This means that borderline test-case decisions will become absolutely essential components of rule-books. For example [A] "Encrypted" signals (i) If you learn of declarer's 4 card major via Stayman, then you may use the information when signalling (ii) but if defenders learn that declarer is void in a suit then they may not use their knowledge of each others' holdings to make life hard for declarer (iii) no restrictions on using such knowledge apply to declarer (because he is not signalling) [B] Dodgy Claims: If an International Player loses the place and makes a faulty claim where the best expert line would be successful, then the claim will be upheld if that kind of play is described by Clyde Love or George Coffin but rejected if it appears only in works by Geza Ottlik. [C] Rule of 18 opening (EBU). David Probst, Tim West-Meads, David Stevenson and other directors could provide borderline examples where their judgement over-rides simple arithmetic. Cases where, if you turned a six into a five, then the opening bid would suddenly become illegal. [D] Concealed understandings: Your notes describe the double of a club splinter as asking for a diamond lead. You are vulnerable against not. RHO opens 1S, LHO splinters 4C and partner doubles. You don't alert but when opponents reach a slam, you find the killing diamond lead. You and partner both claim that double of 4C just shows clubs. This example is based on a real case where the director ruled against the slam-bidders and the appeals committee condemned their appeal. Paradoxically, I believe that had they asked the putative offenders, they would both agree with me that they should have been ruled against. (Because, although this pair may well have been innocent, the balance of probability was firmly against them, so, IMO, this ruling sent a wrong message). Anyway, if a ruling should depend on previous reputation, or the position of the putative offenders in the Bridge Hierarchy, then the rules should specify how *with borderline examples*. Please suggest other laws and rules which would benefit from examples of borderline rulings. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 23 12:38:02 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jul 23 13:33:13 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted overcall (was signals) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000201c6ae4a$6ecfc180$eca187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Who built Thebes of the seven gates? In the books you will find the names of kings, Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock? Where, the evening that the Wall of China was finished Did the masons go?" (Bertolt Brecht) ----------------------------------------------- +=+ And if I happen to have the same suits as he does, one of us is in trouble. +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 6:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted overcall (was signals) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > In Australia generally, and in Canberra in particular, the > brown-sticker convention RCO Two Bids is widely played (even > by little old ladies). > > 2H = weak, 5/5 same Rank (either majors or minors) > 2S = weak, 5/5 same Colour (either reds or blacks) > 2NT = weak, 5/5 same Odd (either pointed or rounded) > > One of the more idiosyncratic Canberra players has devised a > counter-convention when an opponent opens an RCO Two Bid of > 2H or 2S. His partnership agreement is that his 2NT overcall > shows 5/5 in the other two suits. This somewhat disconcerts > the LOL partners of the RCO Two Bidder, so the LOL partners > ask as to which are the other two suits that the 2NT overcall > shows. > > :-) > From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Jul 23 12:44:48 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun Jul 23 13:33:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <200607191505.IAA09502@mailhub.irvine.com> <000401c6ab75$644366e0$0a9468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <000301c6ae4a$74105c40$eca187d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "Who built Thebes of the seven gates? In the books you will find the names of kings, Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock? Where, the evening that the Wall of China was finished Did the masons go?" (Bertolt Brecht) ----------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:56 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) > Law-makers report that most players shun > innovation. < +=+ I have not come across that particular report. This law-maker opines, however, that laws of supply and demand will persuade tournament sponsors of what conditions are desirable for their events. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From willner at cfa.harvard.edu Sun Jul 23 23:28:23 2006 From: willner at cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun Jul 23 23:30:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <200607211439.k6LEd8j5002604@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200607211439.k6LEd8j5002604@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <44C3E9F7.7010705@cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ The international Systems Policy committees > that I have attended include a high proportion of > eminent players of reputed quality Just out of curiousity, have those committees included members from Poland or Australia? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 24 01:32:04 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jul 24 01:35:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c6adae$472ec500$019468d5@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >[D] Concealed understandings: Your notes describe >the double of a club splinter as asking for a >diamond lead. You are vulnerable against not. RHO >opens 1S, LHO splinters 4C and partner doubles. >You don't alert but when opponents reach a slam, >you find the killing diamond lead. You and partner >both claim that double of 4C just shows clubs. > >This example is based on a real case where the >director ruled against the slam-bidders and the >appeals committee condemned their appeal. [snip] Richard Hills: Please cite identifying details of the real case concerned. My elephantine memory suggests that the real case was an ACBL appeal written up in a recent ACBL casebook, but that your summary either inadvertently or perhaps deliberately ("based on") distorted what actually happened in the real case. And, of course, in non-distorted real bridge it is fully illegal, not borderline illegal, to lie about your partnership agreements. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 24 03:16:54 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 24 03:17:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001101c6aebe$da403ca0$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> [Richard Hills] > Please cite identifying details of the real > case concerned. My elephantine memory suggests > that the real case was an ACBL appeal written > up in a recent ACBL casebook, but that your > summary either inadvertently or perhaps > deliberately ("based on") distorted what > actually happened in the real case. > And, of course, in non-distorted real bridge > it is fully illegal, not borderline illegal, > to lie about your partnership agreements. [nige1] What does your [SEC-UNOFFICIAL] mean, Richard? As I said in the original post my "borderline ruling" *is based* on a real case (see "Miami Vice 1996" p 118). I hoped that if I disguised it, then younger BLMLers might not recognize it. West S:KJxx H:85 D- C:QJT8654 P X P North S:Q H:AKQ963 D:T853 C:K2 1H 4N 6H East S:T732 H:J D:Q9632 C:A73 P P End South S:A986 H:T742 D:AKJ7 C:9 4C 5H East led a diamond, defeating the contract. Declarer had read a book written recently by one of the defenders that recommended doubling a splinter for the lead of the lower-ranking unbid-suit. The defenders are a married couple. North-South called the director. Defenders denied playing the convention and it wasn't on their convention card so the director ruled "no infraction". North-South appealed but the Committee upheld the director decision. I disagree with the decision but that isn't the point. To help directors judge borderline cases, law-makers should answer questions like... "What is the minimum quantity of circumstantial evidence needed for an adverse ruling?" "Would it depend on the reputation of the alleged offenders?" "If so how?". And illustrate their conclusions with simple practical example(s). From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 24 03:55:17 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jul 24 03:57:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c6aebe$da403ca0$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <001101c6aebe$da403ca0$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: On Jul 23, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Declarer had read a book written recently by one > of the defenders that recommended doubling a > splinter for the lead of the lower-ranking > unbid-suit. The defenders are a married couple. Hm. Did declarer present this book as evidence to the TD or in the appeal? Presumably he mentioned it at one point. What did the alleged author say? The fact that someone wrote a recommendation in a book does not imply that he necessarily plays that way with any given partner. Generally speaking, we assume that when we ask players a direct question, they answer truthfully. Both defenders denied playing this convention. It wasn't on their card. Seems to me that's enough evidence to rule they aren't playing it. Which is what both the TD and the committee did. WTP? Aside from that, I don't see how NS are making 6H no matter *what* East leads. Well, unless he (she?) leads away from his club Ace, knowing that South has a singleton. Nobody's that stupid, are they? There's an old sea chantey that was used to time saluting guns in the days of sail. It starts "'E's bound to be guilty, or 'e wouldn't be here". I don't think that applies to bridge rulings. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 24 05:22:45 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 24 05:24:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001101c6aebe$da403ca0$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001b01c6aed0$84779d60$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > Hm. Did declarer present this book as evidence > to the TD or in the appeal? Presumably he > mentioned it at one point. What did the alleged > author say? The fact that someone wrote a > recommendation in a book does not imply > that he necessarily plays that way with any given > partner. Generally speaking, we assume that when > we ask players a direct question, they > answer truthfully. Both defenders denied playing > this convention. It wasn't on their card. Seems > to me that's enough evidence to rule they > aren't playing it. Which is what both the TD and > the committee did. WTP? [nige1] East and West are passed hands. West doubled a 4C splinter. Since it was unlikely to suggest a sacrifice, I am puzzled by the call. [Ed Reppert] > Aside from that, I don't see how NS are making 6H > no matter *what* East leads. Well, unless he > (she?) leads away from his club Ace, knowing that > South has a singleton. Nobody's that stupid, are > they? [nige1] Unless East leads a diamond or cashes CA and leads a diamond, 6H is likely to make. [Ed Reppert] > There's an old sea chantey that was used to time > saluting guns in the days of sail. It starts > "'E's bound to be guilty, or 'e wouldn't be > here". I don't think that applies to bridge > rulings. [nige1] You think that there is insufficient circumstantial evidence to rule against the defenders. You are in good company. As far as I know, I am a the only dissenter to that opinion. The interesting question is.... "What is the minimum circumstantial evidence needed? "Do you take into account the standing of the alleged law-breakers?" "And if so how?" From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jul 24 06:12:37 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon Jul 24 06:14:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Miami Vice - Appeals at the 1996 Summer NABC CASE TWENTY-SIX Subject: But, He Wrote The Book Event: NABC IMP Pairs, 08 Aug 96, Second Session Board: 28 Dealer: West Vul: N/S Carole Weinstein Gorsey Q AKQ963 T853 K2 George Rosenkranz Edith Rosenkranz KJ54 T732 85 J --- Q9642 QJT8654 A73 Margie Sullivan A986 T742 AKJ7 9 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1H Pass 4C(1) Dbl 4NT Pass 5H Pass 6H Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted; splinter The Facts: 6H went down two, plus 200 for E/W. East led a diamond which West ruffed. West then returned a club and got a second diamond ruff. N/S called the Director because they thought that the diamond lead was unusual given that West had not opened 3C, had doubled 4C without the CA or CK, and did not double the final contract for an unusual lead. In addition, South had recently read a book written by West that discussed doubling splinter bids to suggest the lead of the lower unbid suit. N/S thought that there had been a failure to Alert the double of 4C. The Director ruled that the table result of 6H by North down two, plus 200 for E/W, would stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. The Committee determined that South was not at the table when the play on the board was completed, and did not find out the result on the board until N/S had a break a few deals later. When South realized that West had authored the book that discussed the conventional doubles of splinters, she called the Director, who then called E/W back to N/S's table whereupon N/S reiterated the facts they had stated to the Director. They added that they believed that the double did not promise so many clubs, and that when partner doubled for the lead of a suit, that suit would normally be led. They stated that they would not have had any concerns had East led the CA and then shifted to a diamond. In response to the Committee's questions West stated that this partnership did not have a "splinter double" agreement, that he had not opened 3C because of the quality of his spade suit, and that he did not double the final contract because he could not double if N/S chose to bid 6NT. When East was asked why she did not lead the CA to have a look at dummy she replied that she considered it, but decided to lead her best suit. The Committee examined the E/W convention card and found that a conventional double of splinter bids was not listed. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that there was no indication that E/W had a concealed partnership understanding, and allowed the table result of 6H down two, plus 200 for E/W, to stand. The Committee then had to determine the disposition of the deposit. The screening Director was questioned and told the Committee that appellants are not explicitly advised that their appeal may not have merit, nor do they recommend the Recorder System to appellants when that approach is considered more appropriate. [The latter statement was disputed by the screening Directors - Eds]. The Committee, in what they considered to be a very close decision, returned the deposit. Chairperson: Ralph Cohen Committee Members: Martin Caley, Nancy Sachs, (scribe: Linda Weinstein) Directors' Ruling: 90.9 Committee's Decision: 88.8 A lot of coincidences happened here: West wrote the book advocating "splinter doubles" to call for the lead of the lowest outside suit; East's hand is quite suitable for a save (if West's double suggests one, which it appears to do if it's not a "splinter double"), but East doesn't comply by saving (or even suggesting one by bidding 5C); East has a "normal" club lead, but doesn't lead it; when N/S get to 6H West knows that he wants the lead of a suit other than clubs but he doesn't double 6H (Lightner?) to try to attract a diamond lead; but East leads a diamond anyhow. Wow! Wolff: "The Director and Committee bought the Brooklyn Bridge. I realize that we are dealing with honest people, but the coincidence of the facts (if they are true) is too much to ignore. We shouldn't serve on Committees if we feel too much pressure." Bramley: "This appeal certainly had merit, if only to assure that the hand would see the light of day. While there is no proof of an infraction from the evidence here, I find N/S's argument provocative and E/W's defense of their actions unconvincing. I think that most players would double 6H with the diamond void, since a successful run out to 6NT looks very unlikely, and partner will probably lead a club otherwise. East's argument about strong diamonds makes no sense at all. I think we would be hard pressed to find a player that would not lead the CA. Despite the absence of a basis for an adjustment, there is a powerful basis for this hand to be recorded. Apparently the screening Directors should get their story straight." Goldman: "I believe that this appeal had a great deal of merit, and that if E/W had been of lesser stature a different decision might have occurred." Do you really think that this Committee had "stars" in their eyes, Goldie? Martel: "The Committee should have probed further as to what was going on, as the E/W actions appear unlikely unless the double of 4C suggested a save. (Then the double and lead make sense.) If the double asked for a club lead it makes no sense, nor does East's diamond lead. If the cards strongly suggest that a pair has an agreement, they should normally be presumed to have it. To suggest that this was an appeal without merit was a joke. N/S were entitled to an explanation of E/W's apparently unusual actions." Rosenberg: "The Director was correct to make N/S appeal, because there was no evidence of an infraction. The reason that West doubled 4C should have been documented." Treadwell: "Another attempt to win in Committee what had been lost at the table. As the Committee report said, it was a close call as to whether the deposit should be returned." Rigal: "An interesting position; it seems that the director was bang on, and that the Recorder system covered this position precisely. So, if N/S were not advised of their best course of action, the appeal deposit should be returned. If they were, it should be kept. We can't have such veiled accusations of unethical behavior taking place without the culprits knowing the jeopardy they potentially put themselves in." Passell: "Insulting to E/W to have to go to Committee. The deposit can't possibly be returned in this type of case." Weinstein: "Referring to the subject title, Mr. Bill's (Pollack) question was 'but did she read it?' It's not clear to me whether N/S were aware of E/W's denial of the use of splinter doubles when the protest was made. Without that awareness the appeal had merit; with that awareness it lacked merit, and the proper N/S recourse (if they remained suspicious) was to have the hand recorded." Did she, or didn't she? Maybe only her hairdresser knows for sure. But, whether East read West's book or not, there is no reason to impute a partnership agreement to her choice of bathroom literature. In part, that is why many of our panelists feel that there is no basis for adjustment. Where Wolffie is prepared to go all the way and adjust the score (on the basis that the evidence is sufficient that E/W knew something that N/S did not, and that N/S might have stayed out of slam had North known that East would lead a diamond), others would have kept the deposit, tread(welling) much more cautiously. What's wrong with this picture? Situations involving suspicions like this are always uncomfortable, but it's important that we do our best to allow human nature to have its forum. How can we deprive N/S of the opportunity to exorcise their demons about this case? By having the case aired, and by having the Committee find no basis for adjustment, N/S were able to deal with the remarkable coincidences they encountered and satisfy themselves (at least in theory) that justice was served. The appeal was certainly not one without merit, even though it might have ruffled some feathers. Perhaps such coincidences call for feather-ruffling. Just ask Wolffie, who is careful to state that he is dealing with honest people. We're prepared to give E/W the benefit of the doubt, but would have the case recorded, if only to afford E/W the protection from innuendo that might ensue if the case were swept under the rug. Let's face it; the facts of the case must merit at least a raised eyebrow. It must be right to hear it. We feel that the merits issue was not as close as the Committee deemed it to be. Not close at all. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Mon Jul 24 07:47:17 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon Jul 24 07:49:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c6aed0$84779d60$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> References: <001101c6aebe$da403ca0$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> <001b01c6aed0$84779d60$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <78083151-20C6-4409-9E72-6233051C82C0@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 23, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Guthrie wrote: > Unless East leads a diamond or cashes CA and leads > a diamond, 6H is likely to make. Ah, I see it now. Would *anyone* at that level of play lead a heart or a spade, or cash the club ace and then lead a heart or a spade? > The interesting question > is.... > "What is the minimum circumstantial evidence > needed? > "Do you take into account the standing of the > alleged law-breakers?" > "And if so how?" That's three questions. :-) My answers: Matter of judgement, no, and not applicable. I do take into account my judgement as to the honesty of the parties - and I have no reason to question the honesty of that pair. If I were presented with evidence of dishonesty, I might have a reason - depending on my evaluation of the evidence. IMO, this is not a borderline ruling. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 24 10:33:13 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jul 24 10:43:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003101c6aefb$ee2def90$5dca87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "In this imperfect world we have no guarantee of justice. The nearest we have contrived is the perception of justice among our peers. This is the foundation of the jury and we should defend it as powerfully as we may." ----------------------------------------------- [Nigel] "This example is based on a real case where the > director ruled against the slam-bidders and the > appeals committee condemned their appeal. > Paradoxically, I believe that had they asked the > putative offenders, they would both agree with me > that they should have been ruled against." < [Grattan] +=+ Surely not so. A pair of this mind must have indicated as much to the Director. Of course, when writing satire an author has licence to bend facts slightly to his purpose. Does one detect just the ickle-bittiest suspicion of bile in Nigel's concoction? +=+ .................................................................. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > > >[D] Concealed understandings: Your notes describe > >the double of a club splinter as asking for a > >diamond lead. You are vulnerable against not. RHO > >opens 1S, LHO splinters 4C and partner doubles. > >You don't alert but when opponents reach a slam, > >you find the killing diamond lead. You and partner > >both claim that double of 4C just shows clubs. > > > >This example is based on a real case where the > >director ruled against the slam-bidders and the > >appeals committee condemned their appeal. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Please cite identifying details of the real case > concerned. My elephantine memory suggests that > the real case was an ACBL appeal written up in a > recent ACBL casebook, but that your summary either > inadvertently or perhaps deliberately ("based on") > distorted what actually happened in the real case. > > And, of course, in non-distorted real bridge it is > fully illegal, not borderline illegal, to lie > about your partnership agreements. > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Mon Jul 24 14:18:46 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Mon Jul 24 14:20:38 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted overcall (was signals) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C4BAA6.2030303@meteo.fr> richard.hills@immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Jean-Pierre Rocafort: > > >>I think all this mess results from a broad incomprehension of >>what is full disclosure. At the opposite of chess where all >>players have a complete information of the state of the game, >>in bridge, players have incomplete and different information. >> >>Those who insist on defenders explaining to declarer the >>content of the signal instead of the basis, are the same that >>ask about an alerted bid: "how do you interpret...?" instead >>of "what are your agreements about...?". > > > Richard Hills: > > In Australia generally, and in Canberra in particular, the > brown-sticker convention RCO Two Bids is widely played (even > by little old ladies). > > 2H = weak, 5/5 same Rank (either majors or minors) > 2S = weak, 5/5 same Colour (either reds or blacks) > 2NT = weak, 5/5 same Odd (either pointed or rounded) > > One of the more idiosyncratic Canberra players has devised a > counter-convention when an opponent opens an RCO Two Bid of > 2H or 2S. His partnership agreement is that his 2NT overcall > shows 5/5 in the other two suits. This somewhat disconcerts > the LOL partners of the RCO Two Bidder, so the LOL partners > ask as to which are the other two suits that the 2NT overcall > shows. > :-) > in my opinion, i think such defenses are accurate. i use similar ones in a few different situations: - against gambling 3NT: 4C shows a minor suit, necessarily the other one - against multi 2D: double is a major suit overcall, not always the other one! - against muiderberg: 2S over 2H, or 2NT over 2S show 4 cards in the other major suit and 5 in some minor (maybe the other one). the underlying strategy is not to be the first to reveal his intentions, a form of minimal disclosure... jpr > > Best wishes > > Richard James Hills, amicus curiae > National Training Branch > 02 6225 6285 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From guthrie at ntlworld.com Mon Jul 24 15:22:42 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon Jul 24 15:23:37 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001101c6aebe$da403ca0$0a9868d5@jeushtlj><001b01c6aed0$84779d60$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> <78083151-20C6-4409-9E72-6233051C82C0@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <000e01c6af24$3f7a4920$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> [Ed Reppert] > Ah, I see it now. Would *anyone* at that level > of play lead a heart or a spade, or cash the > club ace and then lead a heart or a spade? [nige1] I guess yes but don't have play records. [Ed] > That's three questions. :-) My answers: > (i) [The minimum circumstantial evidence > needed] is a Matter of judgement. [nige1] The whole idea is to produce borderline rulings to refine the judgement of directors. [Ed] > (ii) No [you should not take into account the > standing of the alleged law-breakers]. > (iii) So, [how to do so] is not applicable. > I do take into account my judgement as to the > honesty of the parties - and I have no reason > to question the honesty of that pair. If I > were presented with evidence of dishonesty, I > might have a reason -> depending on my > evaluation of the evidence. > IMO, this is not a borderline ruling. [nige1] Contemporary commentators mostly agreed with Ed that there was no case to answer. Although a few regarded it as borderline. It was Richard Hills who insisted on discussing this real-life example. My original made-up example was intended to be [slightly] more suspicious. But it was only a *suggestion*. I would be delighted if any BLMLer can suggest a better example that most players would regard as border-line. And surely there are many other laws that rely heavily on "judgement", that could be clarified with such borderline practical examples. IMO, including such examples in the rule-book would help players and directors. I offer and prefer to get constructive criticism although I accept that destructive criticism requires less thought. Anyway, it would be a welcome change to receive some. From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Jul 24 13:53:48 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon Jul 24 16:52:16 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001101c6aebe$da403ca0$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <001201c6af2f$685432b0$91c687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "In this imperfect world we have no guarantee of justice. The nearest we have contrived is the perception of justice among our peers. This is the foundation of the jury and we should defend it as powerfully as we may." ----------------------------------------------- +=+ **This qualifies as 'partnership experience' in my book.** But seriously, when a player bases his action on an item of knowledge which he shares with his partner (but which is not incorporated within their discussed and announced system and is not widely accepted as general bridge knowledge) and the partner subsequently acts in conformity with that action, the mutual awareness must be regarded, in my view, as an undisclosed partnership understanding revealed by the synchronized actions of the players. In the case cited it seems to me that the partnership made use of extraneous information - not that the 1987 law book, or today's book, carries a statement that can be applied beyond peradventure to the facts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > On Jul 23, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Guthrie wrote: > > > Declarer had read a book written recently by one > > of the defenders that recommended doubling a > > splinter for the lead of the lower-ranking > > unbid-suit. **The defenders are a married couple.** > > Hm. Did declarer present this book as evidence to > the TD or in the appeal? Presumably he mentioned > it at one point. What did the alleged author say? > From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 24 17:52:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jul 24 17:54:28 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c6aebe$da403ca0$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: The actual question is "Did defenders have sufficient implicit understanding regarding this sequence that the X of 4C should have been alerted?". The evidence from the bidding/play is not clear. Personally I'd be interested in the credits of book in question. Something along the lines of "A special thank-you to my wife for her help..." would probably tip me over the edge. Of course I don't know what was said when defenders were asked what their agreement was re the X. A fully affirmative answer (e.g. it is sacrifice-suggesting) gives different options to "we haven't ever discussed it". [ie had they answered definitively I might be facing a choice of either "result stands" or "expulsion". as opposed to simply adjusting for a careless non-alert] Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Mon Jul 24 17:52:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Mon Jul 24 17:54:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings In-Reply-To: <001b01c6adae$472ec500$019468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > [C] Rule of 18 opening (EBU). David Probst, Tim > West-Meads, David Stevenson and other directors > could provide borderline examples where their > judgement over-rides simple arithmetic. OK, I'll give it a try. The rule references "weaker than Ro18", the context being that different forms of hand evaluation are permitted. By my judgement the weakest Ro18 hand is QJ,QJ,K432,65432 (the K&R evaluator calls this a 6.4). K97432,J963,65,6 equates to 6.2 while K98432,J963,65,6 rates a 6.5. I apologise for not being able to find hands that hinge on a 6/5 distinction. In reality I doubt that anyone systemically opens hands "weaker than Ro18" so the difference probably won't matter. I would accept different borderlines from players whose evaluation methods I considered "reasonable". Just because I'm comfortable with the way K&R scores doesn't make it the only possible metric. FWIW KQJT92,QT97,T95,- (also Ro18) equates to 12.5 - giving some indication as to why I think the R018 in isolation is inadequate as an evaluation method. Tim From hermandw at hdw.be Mon Jul 24 18:56:12 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Mon Jul 24 18:59:15 2006 Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm top-posting at the moment, but my reply is down there: Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: blml@rtflb.org Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 03:57 PM Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement Gordon Bower wrote: > > We need a break from encrypted signals arguments, so let's go back to > an old standby, the boundary between careless and irrational. > > Dealer West, both sides vul, IMPs (if that matters to you.) > > T97 > K > K7432 > T932 > AKJ4 Q6 > J6 Q98742 > AQ95 8 > AJ8 K754 > 8532 > AT53 > JT6 > Q6 > > Bidding: 2NT, 3D transfer, 3H, 4H. > > 1: CT,4,6,J > 2: S4,7,Q,2 > 3: H2,3,J,K > 4: C3,5,Q,A > 5: H6,D2,H4,HT > 6: D6,DA > which leaves us with: T9 - K7 932 AKJ 6 - Q987 Q95 - 8 K7 853 A5 JT - > At this point declarer claims 6 of the remaining 7 tricks. Which seems logical - he knows there is a high trump out, but the CK is high and the other club will be thrown on the high spades. > NS look at him expectantly and he says "all tops" or something like > that. > I don't think anyone believes West has miscounted the trumps -- but That seems strange to me. If he knows there is also a small trump out, then he should realize this could ruff his SK, so he should really see there is a problem left. One way to find out if he has miscounted is to ask what was followed to the second heart trick. I doubt if the player noticed the red on red discard. I would let one of his "normal" lines be to cash 2 spades, throwing the club. Sadly, that line works, so we cannot rule the claim down that way. > he has not shown any awareness of the fact that he has several > different ways of entering dummy, which are not guaranteed to be > successful. > > Do you allow him to make, or do you impose entering dummy with CK, > ruffed? I think that would be another "normal" line. Tim: No. I think he might ruff a D to dummy, force out HA, win the S return, ruff a D to dummy, draw the last trump and then start wondering what to do about the C7. I would not see that as a "normal" line. Claimer thinks he has enough high cards and there is only one high trump out. He does not mistakenly believe the C7 is a high one. He fully intends throwing that on the SK. Tim: I might rule differently depending on what was actually said at the time of the claim statement. Of course we would. But what was said was consistent with one mistake (and I believe only one possible mistake): he forgot the small trump. So: one normal line: ruff a diamond, play a heart (taken by the ace of course), diamond return, ruffed, spade to the ace, spade king (club gone), contract made. But: one other normal line: club to the king, ruffed - one trick more to the defence. From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 25 03:20:03 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jul 25 03:20:59 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001101c6aebe$da403ca0$0a9868d5@jeushtlj> <001201c6af2f$685432b0$91c687d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> Message-ID: <001e01c6af88$75aca6a0$099868d5@jeushtlj> [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ ** This [The defenders are a married > couple] qualifies as 'partnership experience' > in my book.** > But seriously, when a player bases his action > on an item of knowledge which he shares with > his partner (but which is not incorporated > within their discussed and announced system > and is not widely accepted as general bridge > knowledge) and the partner subsequently acts > in conformity with that action, the mutual > awareness must be regarded, in my view, as an > undisclosed partnership understanding > revealed by the synchronized actions of the > players. In the case cited it seems to me that > the partnership made use of extraneous > information - not that the 1987 law book, or > today's book, carries a statement that can be > applied beyond peradventure to the facts. [nige1] I agree with Grattan that the circumstantial evidence indicates that the defenders successful employed an undisclosed agreement. [A] Suppose (for the sake of argument) that you deem the evidence just sufficient to rule against a *stranger* (if you deem the evidence too flimsy then strengthen it). [B] Now suppose the alleged offender is a *high standing official*. Say a billionaire member of the ACBL law committee. Would you require more (or less) evidence? [C] Now suppose that, from long acquaintance with the alleged offender, you know him to be honest and truthful. Again would you require more evidence? If he were also a friend, would you ever rule against him? IMO, *Justice should be blind* to status and reputation. All three cases should attract the same initial ruling. Only when it comes to "punishment" should "previous offences" be taken into account. In the case of a player with a track record of dishonesty, perhaps an additional procedural penalty may be appropriate. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jul 25 04:48:23 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue Jul 25 04:50:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c6af2f$685432b0$91c687d9@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >>Declarer had read a book written recently by one >>of the defenders that recommended doubling a >>splinter for the lead of the lower-ranking >>unbid-suit. **The defenders are a married couple.** Grattan Endicott: >+=+ **This qualifies as 'partnership experience' in >my book.** > But seriously, when a player bases his action >on an item of knowledge which he shares with his >partner (but which is not incorporated within their >discussed and announced system and is not widely >accepted as general bridge knowledge) and the >partner subsequently acts in conformity with that >action, the mutual awareness must be regarded, in >my view, as an undisclosed partnership understanding >revealed by the synchronized actions of the players. Richard Hills: I agree with Grattan's paragraph above that if such a mutual awareness existed, then it would be a concealed implicit partnership agreement (Law 75A and Law 40B). Grattan Endicott: >In the case cited it seems to me that the partnership >made use of extraneous information - not that the >1987 law book, or today's book, carries a statement >that can be applied beyond peradventure to the facts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: But I disagree with Grattan that the facts of the Miami case actually fit such a mutual awareness. Firstly, the actual West hand held both long clubs and also a void in diamonds. So the facts of West's hand are consistent West "basing his action" of the double of the 4C splinter on long clubs, rather than a void in diamonds. Secondly, there is no evidence that West writing a book meant that East shared West's knowledge. After all, I have written a booklet about my version of Symmetric Relay (copies emailed on request) but knowledge of that booklet is not shared with all of my partners, some of whom prefer to play Acol. Thirdly, the East player is such a bunny that the fact that expert commentator Bart Bramley stated: "East's argument about strong diamonds makes no sense at all. I think we would be hard pressed to find a player that would not lead the CA." is totally irrelevant, because East is not an expert, so does not use expertly use logic. The answer that East gave of "decided to lead her best suit" is highly plausible logic for a bunny. Lucky coincidences in bridge happen all the time. In fact, it would be a violation of the laws of probability if lucky coincidences did not occur. But a single lucky coincidence does not and should not be used to rule that an infraction *must* have occurred. (But, as was noted back in 1996, reporting the case to the official Recorder was appropriate, since *multiple* coincidences over several deals within the same partnership are evidence of an undisclosed partnership understanding.) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 25 10:17:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jul 25 10:20:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Of course we would. But what was said was consistent with one mistake > (and I believe only one possible mistake): he forgot the small trump. The original text also included "I don't think anyone believes West has miscounted the trumps". I'm happy going with the flow of that and gave what I considered a normally careless line based on that info: one off. (If you can decide he didn't notice a red on red discard I can decide he confused the 6/9 of clubs on the first round, or that he hadn't paid sufficient attention to the entry situation). If you choose to discount that comment and decide that declarer *had* miscounted trumps then you rule for the normally careless line of the CK being ruffed: also one off. I'm not even saying you are wrong to discount the statement about not miscounting trumps - merely that the decision doesn't affect the number of tricks I'd award. Tim From guthrie at ntlworld.com Tue Jul 25 15:04:25 2006 From: guthrie at ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue Jul 25 15:06:27 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings References: Message-ID: <001e01c6afeb$0226a420$229868d5@jeushtlj> [Tim West-Meads] > OK, I'll give it a try. > The rule references "weaker than Ro18", the > context being that different > forms of hand evaluation are permitted. > By my judgement the weakest Ro18 hand is > QJ,QJ,K432,65432 > (the K&R evaluator calls this a 6.4). > K97432,J963,65,6 equates to 6.2 while > K98432,J963,65,6 rates a 6.5. > I apologise for not being able to find > hands that hinge on a 6/5 distinction. > In reality I doubt that anyone systemically > opens hands "weaker than Ro18" so the > difference probably won't matter. I would > accept different borderlines from players > whose evaluation methods I considered > "reasonable". Just because I'm comfortable > with the way K&R scores doesn't make it the > only possible metric. FWIW > KQJT92,QT97,T95,- (also Ro18) equates to 12.5 > - giving some indication as to why I think > the R018 in isolation is inadequate as an > evaluation method. [nige1] Thanks Tim. That is exactly the kind of example needed. Such examples (perhaps including brief tutorials on the dozen most popular legally acceptable evaluation methods) would help a player a lot if he wants his 3rd in hand openings to comply with the Delphic recommendations of the new Orange book. To me, it seems the director may still have a problem when an expert swears by some esoteric new evaluation method (For instance, David Burn's tongue-in-cheek contention that "In my experience '85' combinations are worth a lot of tricks.") Most would prefer that "Rule of x" restrictions (especially in their current nebulous form) be expunged from the Orange book; but while they remain, such examples as yours are essential so that... (i) Players can comply with the law. (ii) Players know when to call the director. and (iii) Directors can rule consistently. From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 25 16:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jul 25 16:42:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings In-Reply-To: <001e01c6afeb$0226a420$229868d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: Nigel wrote: > To me, it seems the director may still have a > problem when an expert swears by some esoteric new > evaluation method (For instance, David Burn's > tongue-in-cheek contention that "In my experience > '85' combinations are worth a lot of tricks.") Not too much of a problem: "That's fascinating David, sadly I lack the experience to comment myself so I'll guess you'd like to take it up with the AC - if I could just have the ?100 deposit please." Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Tue Jul 25 16:40:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue Jul 25 16:42:08 2006 Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement In-Reply-To: <1f9424de40c75b02eb82e73283b5b8fc@smtp.realdsl.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > 1) the forgetting of the small trump. Our correspondent did indeed > say that he does not believe West had miscounted the trumps. But in > that case, why is there a problem. There is a problem because even if declarer is aware of the small trump he hasn't counted either black suit and cannot be sure which line might succeed (his RHO could have a doubleton Spade). The line I originally suggested was the first "careless" line I considered consistent with declarer being aware of a small trump out. Having found one such line I didn't bother looking further (and I have no need to). If you prefer we can rule that crossing to the CK is an "inferior" line to cashing the S winners - it has a lower percentage chance of success but will work better when South is 2xx4 so it's not irrational. > 2) the imagining that C7 is high. Of course you are allowed to find > that declarer is in this misapprehention. And why would finding so be any different to your deciding declarer had miscounted trumps when the collective table opinion was that he hadn't? > But this smacks to me as > "I'm not able to rule against this declarer because of A, so I'm > ruling against him because of B". Tell me honestly, Tim, if there > were no second trump out, and declarer claims the same way, adding at > some point "yes of course you get your high trump", would you rule > against him? No, but in that scenario declarer's statement is typical of "cashing winners from hand - ruff when you like" - there's no complexity in the play no possible entry problem, no possible 4th trick for the defence. Tim From tzimnoch at comcast.net Tue Jul 25 19:03:27 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Tue Jul 25 19:05:25 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C64EDF.6030503@comcast.net> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Nigel wrote: >>To me, it seems the director may still have a >>problem when an expert swears by some esoteric new >>evaluation method (For instance, David Burn's >>tongue-in-cheek contention that "In my experience >>'85' combinations are worth a lot of tricks.") > > Not too much of a problem: "That's fascinating David, sadly I lack the > experience to comment myself so I'll guess you'd like to take it up with > the AC - if I could just have the ?100 deposit please." It is difficult to tell when a third-in-hand opener is too light to be legal. The advantage of RoX or Work Count is that the distinction is clear and the method of evaluating is known to most players, even those who ridicule those methods as insufficient. When players get to choose their own evaluation methods, the distinction becomes less clear and you open the door for argument that one player is being obtuse about his own evaluation skills. Two players could easily disagree with each others' evaluation methods and the dispute gets settled in an appeals committee rather than in the L&EC committee. Some people may be unhappy about the decisions either committee would make. Further, argue some modern hand evaluation techniques aren't suited for showing general strength as much as trick-taking potential. KQJTxxxxx x x xx (13.35 K&R) may take more tricks and is evaluated as stronger than Kxxx Kxx Kxx Qxx (9.85 K&R). But the former is not a 1-level opener and players may feel misled if the hand were indeed opened 1S in 3rd seat. The latter may not be a 3rd-seat opener either, but I wouldn't feel so terribly mislead if someone did open that in 3rd. I believe this is the sort of distinction the regulation is trying to enforce. -Todd From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 25 21:03:36 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jul 25 21:04:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060725145500.02eb27e0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:52 AM 7/13/06, Adam wrote: >No technology is necessary beyond the bidding boxes we already have. >The WBF regulations address this well. They are never used nowadays, >though, since as far as I know all WBF events use screen. > >Please see my proposal that the ACBL should use the WBF technique: I respectfully disagree with Adam's proposal. IME, this merely leads to players who do not have a problem staring fixedly at the stop card until it is picked up, then bidding immediately. The point of the stop warning, whether by stop card or verbal, is to remind one's opponents of their obligation to give the appearance of studying their hand before calling, and one does not study one's hand while simultaneously watching the clock, or the virtual clock provided by the bidder's handling of the stop card. Such a warning doesn't require a duration of its own; it need simply be given. Adam's proposal emphasizes the wrong thing, namely the exact amount of time taken, rather than what the player is doing during that time. This is an instance where, IMO, the ACBL has gotten it right: put the stop card on the table, bid, pick it up, and expect the opponent to act just as they would following a verbal "skip bid" warning. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 25 22:40:50 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jul 25 22:42:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <200607181652.JAA00097@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200607181652.JAA00097@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060725163409.02e442c0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:04 PM 7/18/06, Adam wrote: >Grattan wrote: > > > In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were banned > > for no other reason than intoxication with power of > > bridge organisations. How can a method as simple > > as "if my partner has an odd number of hearts then > > we use upsided down carding" be too complex? Well, > > it is no more complex than the game of bridge itself. > > < > > +=+ Not really justified, Konrad. The ban was > > instituted because the method was regarded as > > an attempt to conceal from opponent the full > > meaning of the play, contrary to the intention of > > Law 40B and 40C. > >If that was the argument, it's not really a good one, IMHO. If a >partnership's agreement is, "Our signal is upside-down if the hand >contains an odd number of hearts and right-side up otherwise", then >disclosing exactly that wouldn't be a violation of 40B/40C; I don't >see how the spirit of those Laws would be violated. Declarer doesn't >know what's in that defender's hand, of course, but we already know >that players are entitled to know their opponents' agreements but not >what's in their hands. Isn't this standard?: When you lead a card on defense, lead a low card if you want partner to continue the suit and a high card if you don't, *except* when you know partner will ruff, in which case lead high or low to ask for a return of the higher- or lower-ranking suit respectively. But in the general case when partner ruffs, declarer will not know whether *you knew* that partner was void. So by Grattan's logic, isn't this the equivalent of an "encrypted" signal? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jul 25 22:58:54 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue Jul 25 23:00:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: References: <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> At 08:21 AM 7/19/06, Ed wrote: >On Jul 19, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >>A proper response by East would be: "if my partner has an even >>number of spades then the c2 is encouraging, discouraging >>otherwise". >> >>Now if you insist on "requiring disclosure of the meaning >>of the signal" then you insist that East should tell >>declarer how many spades his partner has. > >The problem is that the defenders have more information about the >four hands than declarer has, and declarer *cannot* obtain the same >information defenders have in a timely manner. > >Law 40B says "A player may not make a call or play based on a special >partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be >expected to understand its meaning..." > >Declarer cannot reasonably be expected to understand the meaning of >an encrypted signal unless he has the same key the defenders do. > >"or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in >accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." > >Here in the ACBL we have a thing called "the principle of full >disclosure". As I understand that principle, if encrypted signals >were allowed, then the regulations of the SO should require the >meaning of the signal (or the value of the key, which amounts to the >same thing) to be disclosed. Declarer cashes a heart on which partner discards the S5. Opponents ask me what that means. I tell them that if it's a high card, he wants me to play spades when I get in next; if it's a low card, he wants me to play some other suit. Am I obligated to tell them that partner is discouraging spades when I know this to be the case because I happen to hold S432? Is my reply, above, illegal? I don't think so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Tue Jul 25 23:50:01 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue Jul 25 23:52:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060725145500.02eb27e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725145500.02eb27e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Jul 25, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > This is an instance where, IMO, the ACBL has gotten it right: put > the stop card on the table, bid, pick it up, and expect the > opponent to act just as they would following a verbal "skip bid" > warning. Which, in my admittedly limited experience, they do. They ignore their obligations, and bid immediately if they have nothing to think about, or after thought if they do have something to think about. Calling the director about such transgressions is futile unless there is a *clear* connection between their tempo and damage to opponents and, in a club game at least, is liable to get the caller labeled a "bridge lawyer". Life's a bitch, and then you don't play bridge any more. :-/ From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jul 26 09:18:33 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Wed Jul 26 09:20:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35b7cbce8da090a35426ffddeaea9073@smtp.realdsl.be> I have seen that my previous message was sent to Tim alone, as a mistake. I suppose blml can pick up the thread when seeing my sentences quoted. Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-Meads" To: blml@rtflb.org Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 06:31 PM Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement Herman wrote: (there are 2 possible mistakes in declarer's mind) > 1) the forgetting of the small trump. Our correspondent did indeed > say that he does not believe West had miscounted the trumps. But in > that case, why is there a problem. Tim:There is a problem because even if declarer is aware of the small trump he hasn't counted either black suit and cannot be sure which line might succeed (his RHO could have a doubleton Spade). Precisely my point. If declarer has not miscounted trumps, then why is he claiming this way? So the statement, while we should believe it, is rather impossible. Tim: The line I originally suggested was the first "careless" line I considered consistent with declarer being aware of a small trump out. And you are allowed to do so, but as I pointed out, that line does not sound "normal" to me. Anyway, that line falls under 2) of my 2 possibilities. It serves the discussion nothing when you reiterate the same thing again, under a wrong heading. Having found one such line I didn't bother looking further (and I have no need to). If you prefer we can rule that crossing to the CK is an "inferior" line to cashing the S winners - it has a lower percentage chance of success but will work better when South is 2xx4 so it's not irrational. > 2) the imagining that C7 is high. Of course you are allowed to find > that declarer is in this misapprehention. Tim: And why would finding so be any different to your deciding declarer had miscounted trumps when the collective table opinion was that he hadn't? Because, as I said, this smacks of "I want to rule against this person, so I'll find something that he might have thought wrongly". There is absolutely no indication that this declarer thought the clubs would bring in 4 tricks; He has more than enough spade tricks (and he knows it) to cater for that part of the claim statement (all high) to be believed. > But this smacks to me as > "I'm not able to rule against this declarer because of A, so I'm > ruling against him because of B". Tell me honestly, Tim, if there > were no second trump out, and declarer claims the same way, adding at > some point "yes of course you get your high trump", would you rule > against him? Tim: No, but in that scenario declarer's statement is typical of "cashing winners from hand - ruff when you like" - there's no complexity in the play no possible entry problem, no possible 4th trick for the defence. And this statement (I take 6 of 7 tricks, all high) is exactly the same one. So here too, there is no reason to attribute to declarer a line in which he plays the C7 to be high. No Tim, this line of yours is not a normal one. So if you insist on believing the TD that declarer was aware of a small trump being out, you must restrict yourself to lines in which declarer goes to the table twice in order to extract that small trump. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jul 26 10:13:07 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed Jul 26 10:15:10 2006 Subject: [blml] Pseudo-psyches (was Encrypted signals) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <44C3E9F7.7010705@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>+=+ The international Systems Policy committees >>that I have attended include a high proportion of >>eminent players of reputed quality Steve Willner: >Just out of curiosity, have those committees >included members from Poland or Australia? Richard Hills: Australia has now been forced to admit the reality of the-world-as-it-is, rather than the-world-as-it- should-be, as recently released revised system regulations ban the psyching of conventional strong and forcing bids. See: http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html In principle, permitting the psyching of a Precision Club and permitting the psyching of a Standard 2C Game Force was desirable, but in practice the vast majority of such psyches were actually pseudo- psyches based on concealed implicit - or even explicit - partnership understandings. Indeed, a few decades ago, I played against an explicit Tasmanian Precision pair who gave this explanation of their auction -> WEST EAST 1C(1) 3NT(2) (1) Explained as systemically 16+ hcp with any shape (2) Explained as systemically 25-27 hcp balanced :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jul 26 10:17:18 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Wed Jul 26 10:19:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060725145500.02eb27e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725145500.02eb27e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <20be23c0ac7620a67756b776eef81eaf@smtp.realdsl.be> Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: [blml] Skip bids At 10:52 AM 7/13/06, Adam wrote: >No technology is necessary beyond the bidding boxes we already have. >The WBF regulations address this well. They are never used nowadays, >though, since as far as I know all WBF events use screen. > >Please see my proposal that the ACBL should use the WBF technique: I respectfully disagree with Adam's proposal. IME, this merely leads to players who do not have a problem staring fixedly at the stop card until it is picked up, then bidding immediately. The point of the stop warning, whether by stop card or verbal, is to remind one's opponents of their obligation to give the appearance of studying their hand before calling, and one does not study one's hand while simultaneously watching the clock, or the virtual clock provided by the bidder's handling of the stop card. Such a warning doesn't require a duration of its own; it need simply be given. Adam's proposal emphasizes the wrong thing, namely the exact amount of time taken, rather than what the player is doing during that time. This is an instance where, IMO, the ACBL has gotten it right: put the stop card on the table, bid, pick it up, and expect the opponent to act just as they would following a verbal "skip bid" warning. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jul 26 10:26:17 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Wed Jul 26 10:28:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060725145500.02eb27e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725145500.02eb27e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <8e457602889afe1bb7c68213856a9eb5@smtp.realdsl.be> damn program! sorry for the empty post (if it gets to the list!) I respectfully disagree with Eric. See below. Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:55 PM Subject: [blml] Skip bids At 10:52 AM 7/13/06, Adam wrote: >No technology is necessary beyond the bidding boxes we already have. >The WBF regulations address this well. They are never used nowadays, >though, since as far as I know all WBF events use screen. > >Please see my proposal that the ACBL should use the WBF technique: Eric: I respectfully disagree with Adam's proposal. IME, this merely leads to players who do not have a problem staring fixedly at the stop card until it is picked up, then bidding immediately. HDW: We all know this is wrong - and we should educate the players thus. However, this wrong technique happens under whichever way the stop card is handled, and should not be used to discredit one way of handling the stop card over another. Eric: The point of the stop warning, whether by stop card or verbal, is to remind one's opponents of their obligation to give the appearance of studying their hand before calling, and one does not study one's hand while simultaneously watching the clock, or the virtual clock provided by the bidder's handling of the stop card. Such a warning doesn't require a duration of its own; it need simply be given. HDW: That may well be true, but how am I going to tell whether my opponentw believ I have studied my hand long enough not to be giving information about it any more? Eric: Adam's proposal emphasizes the wrong thing, namely the exact amount of time taken, rather than what the player is doing during that time. This is an instance where, IMO, the ACBL has gotten it right: put the stop card on the table, bid, pick it up, and expect the opponent to act just as they would following a verbal "skip bid" warning. HDW: maybe the proposal emphasizes the wrong thing, but the correct things are inherent in it: it is not up to the (presumed) thinker to determine how long is "long enough". If he needs 2 seconds to make up his mind, he must wait for another 8, if it takes him 5, he must wait another 5. But since he's been thinking during that first period, how can he know how much time has elapsed? No really, leaving the stop card for the duration of the skip period is the only sensible way of dealing with this issue. The WBF have given the correct regulation. And I do know that hardly anyone uses the skip procedure correctly, even in countries where it has been the same for years and years. But that is a problem with "bridge players (sigh)" and education, not the sense of one regulation or another. Tell me, Eric: do the bridge players in America in general wait for a skip period after the seeing (and picking up) of a stop card? Are you really telling us that the ACBL regulation is better followed than the Belgian one? Herman. From hermandw at hdw.be Wed Jul 26 10:33:47 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Wed Jul 26 10:35:45 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> References: <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric misses a point: see below. Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 01:15 AM Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) Declarer cashes a heart on which partner discards the S5. Opponents ask me what that means. I tell them that if it's a high card, he wants me to play spades when I get in next; if it's a low card, he wants me to play some other suit. Am I obligated to tell them that partner is discouraging spades when I know this to be the case because I happen to hold S432? Is my reply, above, illegal? I don't think so. HDW: in the definition of encrypted signals there is mention of a key which the opponents have, but declarer has not. The example above also contains a key (only when seeing 234 do we know if the 5 is a small one) but there is no knowing who holds that key. Therefor, there is a significant difference between an encrypted signal and Eric's example, and thus Eric's argument holds no water. I'm not coming out in favour of encrypted signals, nor of their ban, but I just wanted to say that this is a definite class of things, of which I am quite confident that I'll know one when I come accross one. I have thought about playing the following methods: after the lead, we make an approximation of declarer's points, and then we calculate which of us has the highest number of points: that player then makes upside-down signals (or even worse: deliberately wrong ones - without telling declarer), while the other only signals truely. I believe such methods to be encrypted, therefor illegal under WBF policy - and I don't mind them being so, as I would not like it if they did it to me. Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Wed Jul 26 11:08:26 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Wed Jul 26 11:10:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Pseudo-psyches (was Encrypted signals) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: Indeed, a few decades ago, I played against an explicit Tasmanian Precision pair who gave this explanation of their auction -> WEST EAST 1C(1) 3NT(2) (1) Explained as systemically 16+ hcp with any shape (2) Explained as systemically 25-27 hcp balanced ton: So this was an inadvertent psyche, West still thinking he had passed. Simple explanation, isn't it? From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 26 12:08:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jul 26 12:10:32 2006 Subject: [blml] Another claim with inadequate statement In-Reply-To: <35b7cbce8da090a35426ffddeaea9073@smtp.realdsl.be> Message-ID: Herman wrote: > Tim:There is a problem because even if declarer is aware of the small > trump he hasn't counted either black suit and cannot be sure which > line might succeed (his RHO could have a doubleton Spade). > > Precisely my point. If declarer has not miscounted trumps, then why > is he claiming this way? So the statement, while we should believe > it, is rather impossible. Because his "mistake" was not a miscount of trumps but a failure to recognise a possible entry problem or to watch the C pips. Unlike the original poster I have no opportunity to question declarer but if it is agreed that nobody at the table thinks declarer miscounted trumps that's what I will work with. > Tell me honestly, Tim, if there > > were no second trump out, and declarer claims the same way, adding > > at some point "yes of course you get your high trump", would you > > rule against him? Tim: No, but in that scenario declarer's > > statement is typical of "cashing winners from hand - ruff when you > like" - there's no complexity in the play no possible entry problem, > no possible 4th trick for the defence. > > And this statement (I take 6 of 7 tricks, all high) is exactly the > same one. So here too, there is no reason to attribute to declarer a > line in which he plays the C7 to be high. The difference between the two cases is that with a small trump known to be out declarer may be presumed to make an effort to draw that trump - with only a high trump out declarer has no worries about a S being ruffed. > No Tim, this line of yours is not a normal one. So if you insist on > believing the TD that declarer was aware of a small trump being out, > you must restrict yourself to lines in which declarer goes to the > table twice in order to extract that small trump. Which is, of course, exactly what my line involved - crossing twice in D (totally safe from ruffs) before cashing any side-suit winners which might be ruffed. The start: DA, D ruff, force out the high trump is 100% normal and correct (since any return but a S solves the problem and all options remain open). Winning the S return is also normal (indeed compulsory). At this point one has choices between the successful "try to cash one spade", the inferior "cross in D and hope C is good (if C33 or maybe 9 has gone but avoiding any possible S ruff)", or the careless "play a D in order to draw last the trump without noticing the entry problem". Maybe my judgement is way off-beam but the last of these is typical of what I call "careless play" perpetrated occasionally by declarers of all levels. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 26 12:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jul 26 12:59:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman wrote: > I have thought about playing the following methods: after the lead, > we make an approximation of declarer's points, and then we calculate > which of us has the highest number of points: that player then makes > upside-down signals (or even worse: deliberately wrong ones - without > telling declarer), while the other only signals truely. "without telling declarer" is not encryption - it's failure to disclose. Bridge logic generally tells a defender whether there is a need to signal and what type of signal (count/att/sp) is most likely required. Often this means that the stronger defender is signalling attitude (or nothing) and the weaker one count (or nothing). Declarer may or may not know which defender is stronger. Tim From twm at cix.co.uk Wed Jul 26 12:57:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed Jul 26 12:59:20 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings In-Reply-To: <44C64EDF.6030503@comcast.net> Message-ID: Todd wrote: > The advantage of RoX or Work Count is > that the distinction is clear and the method of evaluating > is known to most players, even those who ridicule those > methods as insufficient. Clear is ostensibly good, but "clearly inadequate" is fairly obviously bad. > When players get to choose their > own evaluation methods, the distinction becomes less clear > and you open the door for argument that one player is being > obtuse about his own evaluation skills. Ok, but the EBU explicitly gives permission to use personal evaluation methods (proviso that they should be explainable) and the yardstick is "weaker than RoX" not "compliant with RoX". Thus judgement is required *and* the basic measure is silly. > Further, argue some modern hand evaluation techniques > aren't suited for showing general strength as much as > trick-taking potential. KQJTxxxxx x x xx (13.35 K&R) may > take more tricks and is evaluated as stronger than Kxxx Kxx > Kxx Qxx (9.85 K&R). But the former is not a 1-level opener > and players may feel misled if the hand were indeed opened > 1S in 3rd seat. They would not feel misled if the *description* of the 1 level opener included such hand types (disdainful of the system maybe, but not misled). Given proper disclosure I'd not argue with a player who judged the former hand to be "within a King of average strength". nb even "old-fashioned" hand evaluation, there being a known fit, makes this hand 6hcp+3+3+2 (for 2 singletons and a doubleton)=14. Tim From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 26 15:44:14 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 26 15:46:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <200607191504.IAA09446@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200607191504.IAA09446@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726092625.030666d0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:16 AM 7/19/06, Adam wrote: >Konrad wrote: > > > When I was a student I played regularly in tournaments on my > > university. Plus, naturally, I participated in Junior Championship > > of Poland. In the university tournaments more than 50% of pairs > > played some artificial (not necessarily strong pass) system > > of their own. Most of these systems were unplayable from > > a professional point of view, very often the pairs in question > > had no clue how to use them etc. but it was A LOT of FUN. > >This doesn't sound like fun at all to me. My strength is in >problem-solving, and that's what I find fun; I think a game where >there's a lot of random and wild bidding leading to ridiculous >contracts would take away a lot of the aspect of the game that I find >fun. Or so it sounds like. Maybe that's not the case in practice. >But the difference between the game I'm used to and the game you >describe sounds a little like the difference between playing a game of >chess, and putting the chesspieces on the board and having fun with >the pieces. The other side of the coin: if the cards were dealt exactly the same way every time, bridge would sound a lot like chess. Chess is a game of "perfect information", meaning nothing is hidden. Bridge is a game of imperfect information, in which psychological strategies and tactics can mean as much as pure "problem-solving". Convention restrictions make bridge more like chess, by reducing the variability of the available information, bringing it closer to a perfect information game. If the "imperfectness" of the information one has available is thought by those who prefer purely "problem-solving" games to detract from their fun, they should be playing chess or go, or participating in problem-solving contests. They should not be constricting the possibilities inherent in bridge to make it more to their taste. Those who would like to make bridge more like chess should take a lesson from the history of "new Coke". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 26 15:57:47 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 26 15:59:06 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <200607191544.k6JFieFk002107@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <200607191504.IAA09446@mailhub.irvine.com> <200607191544.k6JFieFk002107@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726094717.0306e0f0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:44 AM 7/19/06, Ron wrote: >Adam Beneschan writes: > > > Bridge organizations are in the business of serving their customers by > > providing something that they find entertaining. > >An interesting (to me at any rate) example comes from college >basketball. Remember the joys of the four corner offense? > >For non-basketbnall fans, basically the offensive team would >move their player far apart and simply pass the ball back and >forth. > >The idea (and it's sound from a theoretical point if not an >entertainment point) is to shoot only free throws or layups. >And if that means passing the ball back and forth for 10 minutes >at a time, so be it. (And if 10 minutes sounds like hyperbole, it >isn't) > >In a sense basketball's shot clock is not unlike systems restrictions. >Restricting potentially sound style choices in the name of >entertainment. NCAA colleges make a good deal of money from their basketball programs; big-time games are played before audiences of tens of thousands. The shot clock was introduced to college basketball to make the game more entertaining for its paying customers, without regard to its effect on making the game more or less entertaining for the people actually playing it. Pickup basketball games played "for fun" do not use shot clocks! Unfortunately perhaps, bridge is not in an analogous situation. But the silver lining to bridge's lack of audience appeal is that we need not worry about making the game entertaining to spectators, but need only concern ourselves with the actual players. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 26 17:03:59 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 26 17:05:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <44BED0B0.3090406@comcast.net> References: <200607192312.QAA13781@mailhub.irvine.com> <44BED0B0.3090406@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726105912.03099dc0@pop.starpower.net> At 08:39 PM 7/19/06, Todd wrote: >Adam Beneschan wrote: >>So if "all systems allowed" tourneys exist on BBO, why is >>anyone who wants to play in that sort of tournament complaining about >>the ACBL or any other SO not holding tourneys like that? > > Because people frequently form opinions from incomplete or > even incorrect information. The ACBL asserts a position that certain > systems are not allowed at its tournaments because they are > destructive. For some people that may be sufficient evidence of truth. Especially since the ACBL uses "destructive system" the way the American administration uses "national security matter", as an undefined, essentially meaningless designation that in reality boils down to nothing more than a subjective decision by some decision-maker(s) that can be applied to whatever they choose without any need for any kind of objective justification. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 26 17:14:39 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 26 17:15:51 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <44BEE928.2030803@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200607182235.k6IMZelj019905@cfa.harvard.edu> <44BEE928.2030803@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726110703.030890f0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:23 PM 7/19/06, Steve wrote: >>From: Alain Gottcheiner >>This is of course excellent procedure, if followed properly. It is >>the suggested procedure in Belgium. >>But its drabback is the same as for other suggestions that have been >>made here : the player using the Stop card will be influenced by his >>hand or the meaning of the bid, letting the Stop card lie on the >>table a long or short time. And this will transmit UI. > >I've played at a club that used this procedure, and it was vastly >better than current ACBL practice. I'm sure the problems Alain cites >can arise, but they seem smaller than what we now have in the >ACBL. All too few players wait at all after skip bids -- except for >the one time they really do have a problem. This is one of those "education" problems. While I believe that the ACBL procedure is superior to the WBF procedure, Steve is quite right that the WBF procedure is better than the prevailing *practice* among most ACBL players. At the just-completed NABC, I routinely followed the ACBL procedure, placing the stop card, placing the bid card, and then picking up the stop card without pause. My opponents, virtually every time, watched me until I picked up the stop card, then either bid immediately or started thinking; the intended effect of the stop card was totally mitigated. But I also noticed, on the several occasions in which I was supplied with a bidding box lacking a stop card, and so perforce used the old verbal "Skip bid, please wait" formulation, that this didn't happen; people knew what they were supposed to do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 26 17:24:38 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 26 17:25:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <20060720082939.69702461498@poczta.interia.pl> References: <20060720082939.69702461498@poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726111815.0308a0d0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:29 AM 7/20/06, Konrad wrote: > > A club in the ACBL could hold its own tournament and allow encrypted > > signals or any other convention that isn't allowed in any national > > ACBL event. > >If so then please take ACBL out of this argument. I was >under the impression that such a tournament would >be illegal in ACBL. It certainly is in Poland - the Systems Policy >applies here to every single tourney under the auspices >of the Polish Bridge Union. Just to clarify: The ACBL distinguishes between ACBL "tournaments" and events run by their affiliated clubs, which award master points at a significantly lower level than even the lowest-level "tournaments". Clubs are free to ignore the restrictions the ACBL puts on "tournament play" and do pretty much what they want. In this lexicon, a no-holds-barred "tournament" would indeed be illegal, but a no-holds-barred "club event", run by an individual ACBL-affiliated bridge club, would not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 26 17:31:20 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 26 17:32:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <7joub2903rp6piuu5nk24ejsfsjs41gmcm@meadows.pair.com> References: <20060720082939.69702461498@poczta.interia.pl> <7joub2903rp6piuu5nk24ejsfsjs41gmcm@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726112559.03088180@pop.starpower.net> At 07:12 AM 7/20/06, Brian wrote: >I'll echo Konrad's view. Maybe the profit motive is a bit >stronger in the USA than in some other countries, but I've >experience of helping organise an inter-club tournament in one >English county, and the organising club committee was then >steamrollered by a member of the county committee into switching >it from restricted licence to general licence *at 20 minutes >notice* (general and restricted are more or less GCC and >mid-chart in ACBL terminology). As the British readers of BLML >will realise, this makes it a few years ago, but I doubt that >attitudes have changed that much since I left the UK. Some would argue that the fundamental problem with the ACBL is that although it is incorporated as a non-profit, membership-directed organization, nobody in ACBL management seems to think that it should be run as one. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 26 17:36:29 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 26 17:37:35 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <000701c6ac1e$7ccbdf90$f4150947@DFYXB361> References: <20060720082939.69702461498@poczta.interia.pl> <000701c6ac1e$7ccbdf90$f4150947@DFYXB361> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726113345.0308c440@pop.starpower.net> At 01:03 PM 7/20/06, raija wrote: >"Equal terms" as I explained above, is not going to happen when the >method is so unfamiliar to the opponents that they cannot draw >inferences to complete the picture of the auction. "Equal terms", as Raija explains them, are not going to happen when squeeze technique is so unfamiliar to the opponents that they cannot figure out what to play to break up an otherwise impending squeeze either. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 26 17:46:17 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 26 17:47:47 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <200607211858.k6LIwthP020190@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> References: <008101c6ace7$ac03f080$9dcafea9@ac342> <200607211858.k6LIwthP020190@athena.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726114340.030888a0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:58 PM 7/21/06, Ron wrote: >My problem with Adam's argument is that you can find the exact same >arguments being raised for all aspects of Roth/Stone (including >2/1, forcing NT) and ... well I've never encountered any article >complaining about takeout doubles (though there are huge numbers of >articles against negative doubles, five card majors. You name it and >somebody railed against it) All true. And the only reason Ron has never encountered anyone complaining that takeout doubles were overly complicated and unfair is that he isn't old enough. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Wed Jul 26 20:46:08 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed Jul 26 20:48:30 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726110703.030890f0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200607182235.k6IMZelj019905@cfa.harvard.edu> <44BEE928.2030803@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726110703.030890f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <684D6AD1-EF85-427C-BE5F-132DAC43BE8B@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 26, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > But I also noticed, on the several occasions in which I was > supplied with a bidding box lacking a stop card, and so perforce > used the old verbal "Skip bid, please wait" formulation, that this > didn't happen; people knew what they were supposed to do. Now that is really strange. How many brain cells does it take to figure out that the whole idea behind the stop card is to do the same thing as the verbal procedure, but silently? From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 26 22:48:00 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 26 22:49:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <8e457602889afe1bb7c68213856a9eb5@smtp.realdsl.be> References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725145500.02eb27e0@pop.starpower.net> <8e457602889afe1bb7c68213856a9eb5@smtp.realdsl.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726162149.02c65900@pop.starpower.net> At 04:26 AM 7/26/06, hermandw wrote: >I respectfully disagree with Eric. See below. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > At 10:52 AM 7/13/06, Adam wrote: > > >No technology is necessary beyond the bidding boxes we already have. > >The WBF regulations address this well. They are never used nowadays, > >though, since as far as I know all WBF events use screen. > > > >Please see my proposal that the ACBL should use the WBF technique: > >Eric: I respectfully disagree with Adam's proposal. IME, this merely >leads > to players who do not have a problem staring fixedly at the stop card > until it is picked up, then bidding immediately. > >HDW: We all know this is wrong - and we should educate the players thus. >However, this wrong technique happens under whichever way the stop >card is handled, and should not be used to discredit one way of >handling the stop card over another. > >Eric: The point of the stop > warning, whether by stop card or verbal, is to remind one's opponents > of their obligation to give the appearance of studying their hand > before calling, and one does not study one's hand while simultaneously > watching the clock, or the virtual clock provided by the bidder's > handling of the stop card. Such a warning doesn't require a duration > of its own; it need simply be given. > >HDW: That may well be true, but how am I going to tell whether my >opponentw believ I have studied my hand long enough not to be giving >information about it any more? > >Eric: Adam's proposal emphasizes the > wrong thing, namely the exact amount of time taken, rather than what > the player is doing during that time. This is an instance where, IMO, > the ACBL has gotten it right: put the stop card on the table, bid, pick > it up, and expect the opponent to act just as they would following a > verbal "skip bid" warning. > >HDW: maybe the proposal emphasizes the wrong thing, but the correct >things are inherent in it: it is not up to the (presumed) thinker to >determine how long is "long enough". If he needs 2 seconds to make up >his mind, he must wait for another 8, if it takes him 5, he must wait >another 5. But since he's been thinking during that first period, how >can he know how much time has elapsed? In my view, "long enough" should be however long the player would take if he did in fact have something to think about. Individual players have their own individual tempos and mannerisms when they are thinking about what to call. The ideal we wish to approach is for anyone to behave identically when he does have a problem and when he doesn't. Regulations that require, in specific circumstances, that everyone who has a problem behave identically (to everyone else who has a problem) do not serve this ideal; they carry us away from it. When an opponent makes a skip-bid and I can only pass, I don't count to 10, or watch the stop card. I instead strive to do exactly what I would do if I were considering bidding: study my cards, appear to decide what to do, and call in my normal tempo. If I were to take exactly 10 seconds by the clock, or make my bid exactly one beat after the stop card was picked up, my partner and opponents would know I really didn't have a problem, but was counting to 10, or watching the stop card. This behavior is what the ACBL approach strives for. When you don't have a problem, you should act as though you do. You can't think about your next call while counting to 10. When you have a real problem, your tempo will vary (some problems are faster to solve than others), and should do so similarly when you don't have a problem. Making everyone with no problem take exactly some fixed amount of time set by regulation results in real problems becoming more obvious, not less. >No really, leaving the stop card for the duration of the skip period >is the only sensible way of dealing with this issue. The WBF have >given the correct regulation. > >And I do know that hardly anyone uses the skip procedure correctly, >even in countries where it has been the same for years and years. But >that is a problem with "bridge players (sigh)" and education, not the >sense of one regulation or another. >Tell me, Eric: do the bridge players in America in general wait for a >skip period after the seeing (and picking up) of a stop card? Are you >really telling us that the ACBL regulation is better followed than the >Belgian one? No, and no. They are, in fact, much better at waiting when they are given a verbal warning instead. The ACBL's stop card policy is not well known, and many, possibly most, ACBL players seem to be under the misapprehension that the ACBL uses the European "bid when the stop card is removed" policy. If the ACBL policy were properly disseminated, they would follow the official stop-card procedure about as often as they do for verbal warnings. How often that is varies widely among venues. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jul 26 23:08:33 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed Jul 26 23:09:46 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: References: <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:33 AM 7/26/06, hermandw wrote: >Eric misses a point: see below. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > Declarer cashes a heart on which partner discards the S5. Opponents > ask me what that means. > > I tell them that if it's a high card, he wants me to play spades when I > get in next; if it's a low card, he wants me to play some other suit. > > Am I obligated to tell them that partner is discouraging spades when I > know this to be the case because I happen to hold S432? Is my reply, > above, illegal? I don't think so. > >HDW: in the definition of encrypted signals there is mention of a key >which the opponents have, but declarer has not. In the definition of encrypted signals, there is mention of a key. The opponents may or may not have it, and the declarer may or may not have it. >The example above also contains a key (only when seeing 234 do we know >if the 5 is a small one) but there is no knowing who holds that key. In a typical encrypted signal, depending on, say, the heart suit parity of the signaller, the defender always knows the key if declarer shows out, and the declarer always knows the key if the signaller's partner shows out. How is that different from whether defender or declarer happens to hold the S432? >Therefor, there is a significant difference between an encrypted >signal and Eric's example, and thus Eric's argument holds no water. I'll try again. I'm playing standard signals. At partner's first discard, he throws the S6. Does this encourage or discourage spades? Both I and declarer must decide by figuring out, based on the auction, the play to that point, and the contents of our hands, what partner's original spade holding was. Either of us might have the information with which to do so, and thus read the signal accurately, or might not. I'm playing heart-parity encrypted signals. At partner's first discard, he throws the S2. Does this encourage or discourage spades? Both I and declarer must decide by figuring out, based on the auction, the play to that point, and the contents of our hands, what partner's original heart holding was. Either of us might have the information with which to do so, and thus read the signal accurately, or might not. So where's the significant difference? >I'm not coming out in favour of encrypted signals, nor of their ban, >but I just wanted to say that this is a definite class of things, of >which I am quite confident that I'll know one when I come accross one. > >I have thought about playing the following methods: after the lead, we >make an approximation of declarer's points, and then we calculate >which of us has the highest number of points: that player then makes >upside-down signals (or even worse: deliberately wrong ones - without >telling declarer), while the other only signals truely. > >I believe such methods to be encrypted, therefor illegal under WBF >policy - and I don't mind them being so, as I would not like it if >they did it to me. I don't see what outright cheating, as suggested by Herman's parenthetical, has to do with this discussion. One can agree to cheat by using deliberately mislead signals without telling declarer no matter what one's signalling methods are. And as to the legal method itself, what's the problem? It will work for your side when declarer has what you think he has and your partner is on the same wavelength, work for declarer when he has concealed extras or is understrength for his bidding, and lead you over the cliff when you and your partner have different ideas about the opposing auction showed. It's hardly unfair (I'd be delighted to see someone try to play it against me in competition); where's the case for banning it? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jul 27 02:13:02 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu Jul 27 02:15:02 2006 Subject: [blml] Pseudo-psyches (was Encrypted signals) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200607260952.k6Q9qXim015065@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Indeed, a few decades ago, I played against an >>explicit Tasmanian Precision pair who gave this >>explanation of their auction -> >> >>WEST EAST >>1C(1) 3NT(2) >> >>(1) Explained as systemically 16+ hcp with any shape >>(2) Explained as systemically 25-27 hcp balanced ton: >So this was an inadvertent psyche, West still thinking >he had passed. Simple explanation, isn't it? Richard Hills: Ahem. (2) The 3NT response to a 1C opening bid was correctly explained as systemically 25-27 hcp balanced West had an idiosyncratic tendency to assess the playing strength of a Yarborough as equivalent to 16+ hcp, hence the East-West partnership agreement about the meaning of a 3NT response to 1C. :-) Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Jul 27 09:42:23 2006 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Thu Jul 27 09:44:19 2006 Subject: [blml] Pseudo-psyches (was Encrypted signals) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Indeed, a few decades ago, I played against an >>explicit Tasmanian Precision pair who gave this >>explanation of their auction -> >> >>WEST EAST >>1C(1) 3NT(2) >> >>(1) Explained as systemically 16+ hcp with any shape >>(2) Explained as systemically 25-27 hcp balanced ton: >So this was an inadvertent psyche, West still thinking >he had passed. Simple explanation, isn't it? Richard Hills: Ahem. (2) The 3NT response to a 1C opening bid was correctly explained as systemically 25-27 hcp balanced West had an idiosyncratic tendency to assess the playing strength of a Yarborough as equivalent to 16+ hcp, hence the East-West partnership agreement about the meaning of a 3NT response to 1C. ton: I did understand that, though considered it possible that he could have 1 or 2 points. You can't wait using such 'tool' till you really have a Yarborough can you? From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Jul 27 09:44:05 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Thu Jul 27 09:46:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net> References: <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> Hello Eric, answers in between your text - see below: Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" I'll try again. I'm playing standard signals. At partner's first discard, he throws the S6. Does this encourage or discourage spades? Both I and declarer must decide by figuring out, based on the auction, the play to that point, and the contents of our hands, what partner's original spade holding was. Either of us might have the information with which to do so, and thus read the signal accurately, or might not. I'm playing heart-parity encrypted signals. At partner's first discard, he throws the S2. Does this encourage or discourage spades? Both I and declarer must decide by figuring out, based on the auction, the play to that point, and the contents of our hands, what partner's original heart holding was. Either of us might have the information with which to do so, and thus read the signal accurately, or might not. So where's the significant difference? HDW: If you deliberately try to make the 2 systems seem as close to one another as possible, then of course there is not much of a difference. The difference occurs when you put the S2 in both sentences. Now the meaning of the first S2 is clear - it's a small one. By throwing the S6 in stead, partner is hoping that enough of the smaller spades are visible, so that you won't be fooled. In any case, the first example is not "encrypted". There is sometimes not enough information available (a key) so that the meaning is not immediately clear. In the second case, that is also true, but the hidden information (the key) is specifically selected to be something which is available to partner, not to declarer. I really believe there is a significant difference. >I'm not coming out in favour of encrypted signals, nor of their ban, >but I just wanted to say that this is a definite class of things, of >which I am quite confident that I'll know one when I come accross one. > >I have thought about playing the following methods: after the lead, we >make an approximation of declarer's points, and then we calculate >which of us has the highest number of points: that player then makes >upside-down signals (or even worse: deliberately wrong ones - without >telling declarer), while the other only signals truely. > >I believe such methods to be encrypted, therefor illegal under WBF >policy - and I don't mind them being so, as I would not like it if >they did it to me. I don't see what outright cheating, as suggested by Herman's parenthetical, has to do with this discussion. One can agree to cheat by using deliberately mislead signals without telling declarer no matter what one's signalling methods are. HDW: indeed, the parenthesis should have been omitted - that is cheating and we all know it. Let's concentrate on the method under which we tell declarer, when asked about signalling "stronger opponent signals true, other upside-down". And as to the legal method itself, what's the problem? It will work for your side when declarer has what you think he has and your partner is on the same wavelength, work for declarer when he has concealed extras or is understrength for his bidding, and lead you over the cliff when you and your partner have different ideas about the opposing auction showed. It's hardly unfair (I'd be delighted to see someone try to play it against me in competition); where's the case for banning it? I believe it is unfair - that's enough for me. As to the case for banning it - let's leave that to the lawgivers. Our discussion was primarily about your fear that some quite normal things would be banned under a poorly written definition. Herman. From hermandw at hdw.be Thu Jul 27 09:52:07 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Thu Jul 27 09:54:12 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060726162149.02c65900@pop.starpower.net> References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725145500.02eb27e0@pop.starpower.net> <8e457602889afe1bb7c68213856a9eb5@smtp.realdsl.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726162149.02c65900@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <05359674b8bdac48b2b63baabdab4921@smtp.realdsl.be> see below Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 01:02 AM Subject: [blml] Skip bids At 04:26 AM 7/26/06, hermandw wrote: > >HDW: maybe the proposal emphasizes the wrong thing, but the correct >things are inherent in it: it is not up to the (presumed) thinker to >determine how long is "long enough". If he needs 2 seconds to make up >his mind, he must wait for another 8, if it takes him 5, he must wait >another 5. But since he's been thinking during that first period, how >can he know how much time has elapsed? In my view, "long enough" should be however long the player would take if he did in fact have something to think about. Individual players have their own individual tempos and mannerisms when they are thinking about what to call. The ideal we wish to approach is for anyone to behave identically when he does have a problem and when he doesn't. Regulations that require, in specific circumstances, that everyone who has a problem behave identically (to everyone else who has a problem) do not serve this ideal; they carry us away from it. When an opponent makes a skip-bid and I can only pass, I don't count to 10, or watch the stop card. I instead strive to do exactly what I would do if I were considering bidding: study my cards, appear to decide what to do, and call in my normal tempo. If I were to take exactly 10 seconds by the clock, or make my bid exactly one beat after the stop card was picked up, my partner and opponents would know I really didn't have a problem, but was counting to 10, or watching the stop card. HDW: When that same opponent makes a skip-bid and you do have a decision to make, and after 3 seconds decide to pass, you don't pass immediately, do you? You also wait for the stop card to be retracted, and then you put your pass card on the table. My point is that, while you are thinking, you have no idea about the time elapsed. By waiting until the red card is retracted, you can achieve exactly the same outcome (no thinking but waiting, or thinking and waiting some more) in both cases. If the card is retracted (or if only a verbal warning is given) it must be more difficult to behave exactly the same in both cases. This behavior is what the ACBL approach strives for. When you don't have a problem, you should act as though you do. You can't think about your next call while counting to 10. When you have a real problem, your tempo will vary (some problems are faster to solve than others), and should do so similarly when you don't have a problem. Making everyone with no problem take exactly some fixed amount of time set by regulation results in real problems becoming more obvious, not less. Not if they behave the same in all cases - such as passing after the red card is retracted. >No really, leaving the stop card for the duration of the skip period >is the only sensible way of dealing with this issue. The WBF have >given the correct regulation. > >And I do know that hardly anyone uses the skip procedure correctly, >even in countries where it has been the same for years and years. But >that is a problem with "bridge players (sigh)" and education, not the >sense of one regulation or another. >Tell me, Eric: do the bridge players in America in general wait for a >skip period after the seeing (and picking up) of a stop card? Are you >really telling us that the ACBL regulation is better followed than the >Belgian one? No, and no. They are, in fact, much better at waiting when they are given a verbal warning instead. The ACBL's stop card policy is not well known, and many, possibly most, ACBL players seem to be under the misapprehension that the ACBL uses the European "bid when the stop card is removed" policy. If the ACBL policy were properly disseminated, they would follow the official stop-card procedure about as often as they do for verbal warnings. How often that is varies widely among venues. As someone els has written - how many braincells does it take to learn that one procedure is exactly the same as another than one knows? Which just proves that the real problem is not in which regulation to choose, but in how to teach the players to follow the correct procedure! Herman. From tzimnoch at comcast.net Thu Jul 27 09:57:29 2006 From: tzimnoch at comcast.net (Todd M. Zimnoch) Date: Thu Jul 27 09:59:24 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C871E9.3070403@comcast.net> Tim West-Meads wrote: > Ok, but the EBU explicitly gives permission to use personal evaluation > methods (proviso that they should be explainable) and the yardstick is > "weaker than RoX" not "compliant with RoX". Thus judgement is required > *and* the basic measure is silly. But what are you measuring? >>trick-taking potential. KQJTxxxxx x x xx (13.35 K&R) may > > They would not feel misled if the *description* of the 1 level opener > included such hand types (disdainful of the system maybe, but not > misled). Given proper disclosure I'd not argue with a player who judged > the former hand to be "within a King of average strength". > nb even "old-fashioned" hand evaluation, there being a known fit, makes > this hand 6hcp+3+3+2 (for 2 singletons and a doubleton)=14. I don't suppose a large number of people will be interested, but the regulation goes into effect next month? I'm curious to know if and how the limits of 3rd seat 1-level openers are tested in the EBU. I thought my example hand would be well outside the limit. -Todd From twm at cix.co.uk Thu Jul 27 11:26:00 2006 From: twm at cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Thu Jul 27 11:28:31 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings In-Reply-To: <44C871E9.3070403@comcast.net> Message-ID: Todd wrote: > > Ok, but the EBU explicitly gives permission to use personal > > evaluation methods (proviso that they should be explainable) and > > the yardstick is "weaker than RoX" not "compliant with RoX". Thus > > judgement is required *and* the basic measure is silly. > > But what are you measuring? The strength/weakness of the hand. OK a somewhat nebulous concept but if one polled a group of reasonable players as to whether AT98xx,QT98x,x,x was stronger or weaker than QJ,QJ,Kxxx,xxxxx one would not expect much variation in the answers. > I don't suppose a large number of people will be interested, > but the regulation goes into effect next month? I'm curious > to know if and how the limits of 3rd seat 1-level openers > are tested in the EBU. Oh - You mean the new regulations! Those are, quite blatantly, illegal. 11 C 9 Minimum opening bid strength in first and second seat The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18. However a partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least Rule of 18. 11 C 10 Minimum opening bid strength in third and fourth seat The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is 8 HCP. The wording elsewhere has also been changed such that judgement/personal evaluation methods (however reasonable and explainable) are no longer permitted with regard to the above. The EBULC are, IMO deliberately, mocking the laws of bridge. For them even to contemplate the idea that AT987xx,KT98xx,-,- is a hand that is not within "a king of average strength" is simply too stupid to be accidental. It's good for a grand opposite x,A76xx,Kxx,Qxxx and under current regs might be bid 1S-1N-2H-3H-4C-4H-4S-5H-6D-7H. Under the new regs the bidding goes P-P-P-P (OK I know the opps will likely open but we should not have to *rely* on them doing so in order to bid our grand slams!). Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Jul 27 15:36:05 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu Jul 27 15:51:03 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl><6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001901c6b182$547caec0$e9be87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "If a man does not keep pace with his companions perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away." (Thoreau) -------------------------------------------- +=+ I do not seek to come between these two stout knights. However, I do think it is essential to be precise about the regulation. This refers to "a meaning hidden from declarer because of some key available only to the defenders". The word 'available' is interpreted to mean that the key is not available to declarer in principle - it is not that he does not possess it but rather that he could not possess it. Since I have distanced myself from reading the total correspondence I have no knowledge whether this angle has been explored. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ....................----------------....................... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) > > > >HDW: in the definition of encrypted signals > there is mention of a key which the opponents > have, but declarer has not. > > In the definition of encrypted signals, there is > mention of a key. The opponents may or may > not have it, and the declarer may or may not > have it. > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 27 17:10:32 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jul 27 17:11:42 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <684D6AD1-EF85-427C-BE5F-132DAC43BE8B@rochester.rr.com> References: <200607182235.k6IMZelj019905@cfa.harvard.edu> <44BEE928.2030803@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726110703.030890f0@pop.starpower.net> <684D6AD1-EF85-427C-BE5F-132DAC43BE8B@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060727110446.02c061e0@pop.starpower.net> At 02:46 PM 7/26/06, Ed wrote: >On Jul 26, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>But I also noticed, on the several occasions in which I was >>supplied with a bidding box lacking a stop card, and so perforce >>used the old verbal "Skip bid, please wait" formulation, that this >>didn't happen; people knew what they were supposed to do. > >Now that is really strange. How many brain cells does it take to >figure out that the whole idea behind the stop card is to do the same >thing as the verbal procedure, but silently? Not many, unless one has conflicting information. Ed describes the *ACBL's* "whole idea behind the stop card". But the Europeans have a different idea, believing that the point of the stop card is for the bidder to control the tempo of LHO's call, rather than requiring LHO to do so himself. The current problem in the ACBL is that *their* view has not been sufficiently well disseminated, and many, if not most, ACBL players think that the ACBL has adopted the European approach. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ereppert at rochester.rr.com Thu Jul 27 17:34:58 2006 From: ereppert at rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu Jul 27 17:37:23 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060727110446.02c061e0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200607182235.k6IMZelj019905@cfa.harvard.edu> <44BEE928.2030803@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726110703.030890f0@pop.starpower.net> <684D6AD1-EF85-427C-BE5F-132DAC43BE8B@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060727110446.02c061e0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4D556EBE-F8B0-4767-B85A-0C7289E212DB@rochester.rr.com> On Jul 27, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > The current problem in the ACBL is that *their* view has not been > sufficiently well disseminated, and many, if not most, ACBL players > think that the ACBL has adopted the European approach. For the first part of that, the ACBL are at fault. But players must take some responsibility, too. Why the Hell would anyone assume the ACBL would do things the way the Europeans do? :-) From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 27 17:59:18 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jul 27 18:03:07 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> References: <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net> <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060727114131.02c00560@pop.starpower.net> At 03:44 AM 7/27/06, hermandw wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > I'm playing standard signals. At partner's first discard, he throws > the S6. Does this encourage or discourage spades? Both I and declarer > must decide by figuring out, based on the auction, the play to that > point, and the contents of our hands, what partner's original spade > holding was. Either of us might have the information with which to do > so, and thus read the signal accurately, or might not. > > I'm playing heart-parity encrypted signals. At partner's first > discard, he throws the S2. Does this encourage or discourage > spades? Both I and declarer must decide by figuring out, based on the > auction, the play to that point, and the contents of our hands, what > partner's original heart holding was. Either of us might have the > information with which to do so, and thus read the signal accurately, > or might not. > > So where's the significant difference? > >HDW: If you deliberately try to make the 2 systems seem as close to >one another as possible, then of course there is not much of a difference. >The difference occurs when you put the S2 in both sentences. Now the >meaning of the first S2 is clear - it's a small one. By throwing the >S6 in stead, partner is hoping that enough of the smaller spades are >visible, so that you won't be fooled. In any case, the first example >is not "encrypted". There is sometimes not enough information >available (a key) so that the meaning is not immediately clear. In the >second case, that is also true, but the hidden information (the key) >is specifically selected to be something which is available to >partner, not to declarer. My key point (pardon the pun) is that, in the heart-parity example, the key many not be available to partner, and the key may well be available to declarer. Of course, one will choose "encryptions" that will *usually* be easier for partner to read than for declarer to read, but that's clearly the general case: most of the time, defenders have more clues about declarer's holding than declarer has about either specific defender's, since it's more often the case that the declaring side has made more bids and has had the more descriptive auction. But that's far too general to be a consideration with regard to encrypted signals. It's a general advantage defenders have in all aspects of defense, of which signalling methods are merely one minor aspect; I do see how you can call it "unfair" when applied to one's choice of signalling methods, but not unfair when applied to one's choice of whether to signal or what to attempt to communicate, regardless of the particular signalling method used. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 27 19:13:16 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu Jul 27 19:05:49 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060727114131.02c00560@pop.starpower.net> References: <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net> <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:59 27/07/2006 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >My key point (pardon the pun) is that, in the heart-parity example, the >key many not be available to partner, and the key may well be available to >declarer. Of course, one will choose "encryptions" that will *usually* be >easier for partner to read than for declarer to read, but that's clearly >the general case: most of the time, defenders have more clues about >declarer's holding than declarer has about either specific defender's, >since it's more often the case that the declaring side has made more bids >and has had the more descriptive auction. But that's far too general to >be a consideration with regard to encrypted signals. It's a general >advantage defenders have in all aspects of defense, of which signalling >methods are merely one minor aspect; I do see how you can call it "unfair" >when applied to one's choice of signalling methods, but not unfair when >applied to one's choice of whether to signal or what to attempt to >communicate, regardless of the particular signalling method used. > Mine is that other methods transmit coded information, giving defenders an advantage that declarer will never have, yet are allowed. Take Vinje pattern signals, for example. On the first trump trick, you will signal "even" if you hold three even suits, and "odd" if you have three odd suits (if you have two of each, call the TD). Say that spades are trumps, as they so often are, and the second round of hearts is ruffed. Say you have two spades and signal "even". Now, in you have an odd number of hearts (which only you and partner know), this tells all about the other two suits ... but not to declarer. And if you give diamond count (the highest uncounted plain suit) while following suit in spades, you're by the same token giving encrypted count in clubs, so that your signal in clubs may have some other signification. In both those cases, Herman's equity argument (sometimes declarer will know what defenders have some difficulty to know) doesn't apply. Yet both these signalling methods are allowed. Why ? Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jul 27 23:03:29 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu Jul 27 23:04:41 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <05359674b8bdac48b2b63baabdab4921@smtp.realdsl.be> References: <200607061421.k66ELML8021842@cfa.harvard.edu> <44B31756.5090600@cfa.harvard.edu> <018301c6a4a0$d3b33ea0$039468d5@jeushtlj> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725145500.02eb27e0@pop.starpower.net> <8e457602889afe1bb7c68213856a9eb5@smtp.realdsl.be> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726162149.02c65900@pop.starpower.net> <05359674b8bdac48b2b63baabdab4921@smtp.realdsl.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060727160856.02c42cd0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:52 AM 7/27/06, hermandw wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > At 04:26 AM 7/26/06, hermandw wrote: > > >HDW: maybe the proposal emphasizes the wrong thing, but the correct > >things are inherent in it: it is not up to the (presumed) thinker to > >determine how long is "long enough". If he needs 2 seconds to make up > >his mind, he must wait for another 8, if it takes him 5, he must wait > >another 5. But since he's been thinking during that first period, how > >can he know how much time has elapsed? > > In my view, "long enough" should be however long the player would take > if he did in fact have something to think about. Individual players > have their own individual tempos and mannerisms when they are thinking > about what to call. The ideal we wish to approach is for anyone to > behave identically when he does have a problem and when he > doesn't. Regulations that require, in specific circumstances, that > everyone who has a problem behave identically (to everyone else who has > a problem) do not serve this ideal; they carry us away from it. > > When an opponent makes a skip-bid and I can only pass, I don't count to > 10, or watch the stop card. I instead strive to do exactly what I > would do if I were considering bidding: study my cards, appear to > decide what to do, and call in my normal tempo. If I were to take > exactly 10 seconds by the clock, or make my bid exactly one beat after > the stop card was picked up, my partner and opponents would know I > really didn't have a problem, but was counting to 10, or watching the > stop card. > >HDW: When that same opponent makes a skip-bid and you do have a >decision to make, and after 3 seconds decide to pass, you don't pass >immediately, do you? Yes, sometimes. OK, I admit that (a) I'm atypically fast at the table in general, (b) I try to play with partners who are also fast, (c) I play a disproportionate number of the higher-level events I get to in fast-clock games (2/3 the usual regulation time), and (d) in head-to-head matches I try to play against the opposing team's faster pair; the net is that I'm often at tables where three seconds is the prevailing "tempo of the table". But when it is, I don't feel compelled to wait 10. What I do do is give a convincing enough appearance of studying my cards and making a decision over my call that my opponents have never objected when I call in the expected three seconds or so. >You also wait for the stop card to be retracted, and then you put your >pass card on the table. I do that against opponents -- a shockingly large number -- who misbelieve that the ACBL follows the European practice in regard to handling the stop card. Those who know and understand the ACBL-mandated practice, however, will have picked up the stop card well before my three-second huddle is concluded. In fact, if they don't, ACBL rules allow me to ignore the stop card and bid. I don't, of course; that would just cause trouble for no reason. On my best ethics days, when I have absolutely no problem at all, I pretend to study my hand, emerge from my thinking, reach for a bid, notice that the stop card is still on the table, and snatch my hand back, then wait for the stop card to be picked up before taking my intended bidding card out. >My point is that, while you are thinking, you have no idea about the >time elapsed. By waiting until the red card is retracted, you can >achieve exactly the same outcome (no thinking but waiting, or thinking >and waiting some more) in both cases. If the card is retracted (or if >only a verbal warning is given) it must be more difficult to behave >exactly the same in both cases. But, similarly, while you are thinking, you have no idea what your opponent may be doing with his stop card. When you have no problem, but, to be as ethical as possible (and, in the ACBL, to act as the regulations require), give a convincing show of thinking, you can't be all that convincing if you behave as if you know exactly what your opponent is doing with his stop card. If you sometimes huddle for 15 seconds with a problem, isn't it more ethical to sometimes huddle for 15 seconds without a problem? And if you always call in 10 seconds or less, what difference if you come out of your huddle and call or if you come out of your huddle and watch the stop card until it's picked up, then call. > This behavior is what the ACBL approach strives for. When you don't > have a problem, you should act as though you do. You can't think about > your next call while counting to 10. When you have a real problem, > your tempo will vary (some problems are faster to solve than others), > and should do so similarly when you don't have a problem. Making > everyone with no problem take exactly some fixed amount of time set by > regulation results in real problems becoming more obvious, not less. > >Not if they behave the same in all cases - such as passing after the >red card is retracted. But they can't. They can, and do, easily pass immediately the instant the red card is picked up when they don't have a problem. But they can't, and don't, when, as Herman says, they are in fact "thinking [and] have no idea about the time elapsed". So they can, but shouldn't, when they're pretending to be thinking; they should be pretending to have no idea about the time elapsed. It may well be that Herman and I differ because of our personal reactions to our opponents at the table, our "table feel". Herman may find it much easier to distinguish real problems from "ethically pretended" ones based on tempo, while I find it much easier to gauge whether my opponent was surreptitiously keeping his eye on the stop card while he's doing his "pretending". So maybe we're both projecting our idiosyncracies and suggesting that the most effective procedure is the one that would be most effective against us. >Which just proves that the real problem is not in which regulation to >choose, but in how to teach the players to follow the correct procedure! Surely so. *Our* problem on BLML may be to explore and debate about these differing approaches in the hope of, if not creating a consensus, at least educating ourselves on their relative merits. But both of them work well enough, and out there in the real world Herman's conclusion is inescapable. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 26 18:30:01 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jul 28 00:41:40 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:57:47 EDT." <6.1.1.1.0.20060726094717.0306e0f0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200607261616.JAA16673@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > At 11:44 AM 7/19/06, Ron wrote: > > >Adam Beneschan writes: > > > > > Bridge organizations are in the business of serving their customers by > > > providing something that they find entertaining. > > > >An interesting (to me at any rate) example comes from college > >basketball. Remember the joys of the four corner offense? > > > >For non-basketbnall fans, basically the offensive team would > >move their player far apart and simply pass the ball back and > >forth. > > > >The idea (and it's sound from a theoretical point if not an > >entertainment point) is to shoot only free throws or layups. > >And if that means passing the ball back and forth for 10 minutes > >at a time, so be it. (And if 10 minutes sounds like hyperbole, it > >isn't) > > > >In a sense basketball's shot clock is not unlike systems restrictions. > >Restricting potentially sound style choices in the name of > >entertainment. > > NCAA colleges make a good deal of money from their basketball programs; > big-time games are played before audiences of tens of thousands. The > shot clock was introduced to college basketball to make the game more > entertaining for its paying customers, without regard to its effect on > making the game more or less entertaining for the people actually > playing it. Pickup basketball games played "for fun" do not use shot > clocks! Yeah, but I can't imagine pickup basketball players just being happy with passing the ball around for ten minutes. What would the point be? They're going to want to show off how well they shoot, or how well they drive to the basket, or how well they can prevent the other guys from getting shots off. In this situation, winning is less important. In the NCAA, winning is a lot more important. Thus, when the rules of the game made it strategically feasible to pass the ball around for extended periods of time, that's what teams did. This brings up another point: Basketball is about shooting ability. OK, that's certainly not the only thing it's about. But it's an important aspect of the game. If the rules somehow make it strategically sound to win by using some other skill that "should" be less important, it's perfectly legitimate to fix the rules to make such strategies less desirable. I'm not saying this is what the NCAA had in mind---more likely TV viewership and ad revenue was the biggest factor. But it's a legitimate reason for adjusting the rules of a game. And it applies to bridge, too; IF (this is a big if) allowing too many unusual conventions leads to a situation where players are forced to work a lot more on developing skills needed to cope with those conventions, and thus a lot less on constructive bidding and card play and defense, and IF the view is that coping-with-conventions skills "should" be less important than the other skills, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with adjusting the rules to restore what the correct balance "should" be. This is all subjective. The ideas of what basketball or bridge is "about", and what skills "should" be more important, are totally subjective, and it's hard for me to even talk about what I mean clearly. But "subjective" does not imply "unimportant". -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 26 17:35:26 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jul 28 00:41:44 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:03:59 EDT." <6.1.1.1.0.20060726105912.03099dc0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200607261522.IAA16081@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > At 08:39 PM 7/19/06, Todd wrote: > > >Adam Beneschan wrote: > >>So if "all systems allowed" tourneys exist on BBO, why is > >>anyone who wants to play in that sort of tournament complaining about > >>the ACBL or any other SO not holding tourneys like that? > > > > Because people frequently form opinions from incomplete or > > even incorrect information. The ACBL asserts a position that certain > > systems are not allowed at its tournaments because they are > > destructive. For some people that may be sufficient evidence of truth. > > Especially since the ACBL uses "destructive system" the way the > American administration uses "national security matter" and the Supreme Court uses "unconstitutional" [off topic, but if we're going to start throwing political barbs in here I can certainly insert my own] > , as an > undefined, essentially meaningless designation that in reality boils > down to nothing more than a subjective decision by some > decision-maker(s) that can be applied to whatever they choose without > any need for any kind of objective justification. Well, first of all, I should point out that although Todd posted as if he were responding to me, he seemed to be responding to some other post, perhaps, because his point had nothing whatsoever to do with mine. So my text above probably doesn't belong here (not that I made any effort to remove it). But I also wanted to ask: You seem to be making an assertion that the ACBL bans whatever systems it feels like and just sticks a "destructive" label on it to try to justify their actions. You're not merely asserting that they have the potential to do this, you're asserting that they actually do. So no doubt you can provide some examples of them doing this? (By the way, I think "destructive" does have a meaning, although it's not a precise formulaic meaning that you can apply objectively to some bidding system. But there's a huge gray area between words that have a precise objective meaning and words that have no meaning at all.) -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 26 17:02:48 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jul 28 00:41:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:33:47 +0200." Message-ID: <200607261449.HAA15586@mailhub.irvine.com> Herman wrote: > Eric misses a point: see below. > > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium > www.hdw.be > > [Eric:] > Declarer cashes a heart on which partner discards the S5. Opponents > ask me what that means. > > I tell them that if it's a high card, he wants me to play spades when I > get in next; if it's a low card, he wants me to play some other suit. > > Am I obligated to tell them that partner is discouraging spades when I > know this to be the case because I happen to hold S432? Is my reply, > above, illegal? I don't think so. [Herman:] > HDW: in the definition of encrypted signals there is mention of a > key which the opponents have, but declarer has not. The example > above also contains a key (only when seeing 234 do we know if the 5 > is a small one) but there is no knowing who holds that key. > > Therefor, there is a significant difference between an encrypted > signal and Eric's example, and thus Eric's argument holds no water. I disagree. From what I can tell, the issue isn't whether encrypted signals are essentially just like other signals; the issue is whether encrypted signals violate the spirit of "full disclosure". According to some previous posts, that's the reason encrypted signals are banned. I agree with Eric that, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FULL DISCLOSURE, there is no difference between telling declarer something like "Partner's spade 5 is encouraging if he has an odd number of hearts, discouraging if he has an even number", and "Partner's spade 5 is encouraging if it's a relatively high spot card in his hand, discouraging if it's relatively low". Both explanations, I think, are equally good at following both the letter and the spirit of the full disclosure laws. This doesn't mean that encrypted signals aren't basically different from other types of signals. Yes, there's a key involved that both defenders know about. Based on that, I'm sure it's possible to come up with a meaningful definition of "encrypted" signals, and ban them. Also, I don't have a particular problem with organizations banning encrypted signals, FOR A LEGITIMATE REASON. But the reason that was given---they violate the spirit of full disclosure---is, IMHO, *not* a legitimate one. These discussions get so convoluted that sometimes it's hard to tell who's making what point and who's refuting what point of which argument. Hopefully this will clarify things a little bit. At least it will clarify *my* opinion---and I posted something very similar to what Eric is saying. -- Adam From adam at irvine.com Wed Jul 26 17:16:58 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jul 28 00:41:54 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:44:14 EDT." <6.1.1.1.0.20060726092625.030666d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200607261503.IAA15802@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > At 11:16 AM 7/19/06, Adam wrote: > > >Konrad wrote: > > > > > When I was a student I played regularly in tournaments on my > > > university. Plus, naturally, I participated in Junior Championship > > > of Poland. In the university tournaments more than 50% of pairs > > > played some artificial (not necessarily strong pass) system > > > of their own. Most of these systems were unplayable from > > > a professional point of view, very often the pairs in question > > > had no clue how to use them etc. but it was A LOT of FUN. > > > >This doesn't sound like fun at all to me. My strength is in > >problem-solving, and that's what I find fun; I think a game where > >there's a lot of random and wild bidding leading to ridiculous > >contracts would take away a lot of the aspect of the game that I find > >fun. Or so it sounds like. Maybe that's not the case in practice. > >But the difference between the game I'm used to and the game you > >describe sounds a little like the difference between playing a game of > >chess, and putting the chesspieces on the board and having fun with > >the pieces. > > The other side of the coin: if the cards were dealt exactly the same > way every time, bridge would sound a lot like chess. Chess is a game > of "perfect information", meaning nothing is hidden. Bridge is a game > of imperfect information, in which psychological strategies and tactics > can mean as much as pure "problem-solving". Convention restrictions > make bridge more like chess, by reducing the variability of the > available information, bringing it closer to a perfect information > game. That's grossly overstating the case, I think. You could have a tournament where everyone is required to bid exactly as Goren told them how to bid---and there would still be tons of hidden information. In fact, back in the old days everyone pretty much bid the same way, and there was still a need to try to reconstruct the hidden hands by logic, and there were plenty of opportunities for deceptive carding and other psychological strategies. And before that there was whist, which didn't have any bidding at all but was still very much a game of imperfect information. (Moreso than bridge, perhaps, since there was no dummy.) So *this* argument, I think, doesn't hold water. Anyway, I want to make it clear that I am *not* saying that bridge should be more like chess. My point here is that my idea about what makes the game fun is different from Konrad's, or Richard Willey's, or some other people; and that when bridge organizations decide what restrictions to impose or not to impose, they need to take into account that different people like different things about the game, and thus need to figure out what the right balance is or find another way to cater to different tastes. I certainly am not of the mind-set that bridge should simply structure its rules around what I find fun; it seems to me that often, those who argue for elimination of all restrictions *are* of that kind of mind-set. That is, they really enjoy the experimentation aspect of the game, and are peeved when they find out they can't do it because the other players around them don't really want to play the same kind of game. That's probably too harsh, and it certain does not apply to everybody that argues against convention restrictions. But that kind of mind-set does seem to exist, to some degree. -- Adam From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jul 28 00:58:28 2006 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri Jul 28 01:01:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >Take Vinje pattern signals, for example. On the first >trump trick, you will signal "even" if you hold three >even suits, and "odd" if you have three odd suits [snip] >these signalling methods are allowed. > >Why ? Richard Hills: In my youth I used to play Vinje defensive signals. But I spent so much time and brain cells encoding and decoding the Vinje signals that I did not have enough time and brain cells left over to find the correct line of defence. Ergo, I _insist_ that my opponents should be allowed to use Vinje signals. :-) On the substantive issue, Grattan's argument that the specific method named "Encrypted Signals" must be intrinsically unLawful is either: (a) incorrect, or (b) has the unintended consequence that more common methods such as "High Encourage" are intrinsically unLawful. But, as Ton has noted, this whole debate is moot, as sponsoring organisations have clear authority to regulate via Law 40D to prohibit "Encrypted Signals". And, from a public policy point of view, "Encrypted Signals" are more likely to cause breaks in tempo and/or unduly slow play than "Natural Present Count Signals" (which is why some sponsoring organisations have regulated via Law 40D to prohibit the non- encrypted "Roman Signals"). Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae National Training Branch 02 6225 6285 From hermandw at hdw.be Fri Jul 28 09:17:09 2006 From: hermandw at hdw.be (Herman De wael) Date: Fri Jul 28 09:19:22 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net> <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <25c1d414208121d2ba3c99d5538b56aa@smtp.realdsl.be> see below Herman De Wael Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium www.hdw.be ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 08:25 PM Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) At 11:59 27/07/2006 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: Mine is that other methods transmit coded information, giving defenders an advantage that declarer will never have, yet are allowed. Take Vinje pattern signals, for example. On the first trump trick, you will signal "even" if you hold three even suits, and "odd" if you have three odd suits (if you have two of each, call the TD). Say that spades are trumps, as they so often are, and the second round of hearts is ruffed. Say you have two spades and signal "even". Now, in you have an odd number of hearts (which only you and partner know), this tells all about the other two suits ... but not to declarer. And if you give diamond count (the highest uncounted plain suit) while following suit in spades, you're by the same token giving encrypted count in clubs, so that your signal in clubs may have some other signification. In both those cases, Herman's equity argument (sometimes declarer will know what defenders have some difficulty to know) doesn't apply. Yet both these signalling methods are allowed. Why ? First of all. Are they? Maybe they are. And why? because they do not transmit encrypted information, but real info. "I have three odd-numbered suits" is information that is "real", not encrypted. The point becomes unclear when only using it when declarer ruffs. Now the information becomes "I have odd numbers of diamonds and clubs if I have an odd number of hearts and vice versa". This is encrypted information and would, if I were directing, be judged illegal (well, HUM). So you are starting with a wrong assumption, Alain, that Vinje signals are allowed! Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 28 10:33:33 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Jul 28 10:26:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <25c1d414208121d2ba3c99d5538b56aa@smtp.realdsl.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@pop.ulb.ac.be> <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net> <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060728102200.020a1430@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:17 28/07/2006 +0200, you wrote: >And why? because they do not transmit encrypted information, but real info. >"I have three odd-numbered suits" is information that is "real", not >encrypted. "I have an odd number of black cards" (or pointed cards etc.) is real information, but that's what the so-called "encrypted signals" tell. Another signal that I've heard of and which tells real things, while being in some way hidden : following in trumps, when there are only two unknown suits, the following way : - high-low tells "I have the same number of cards in the two remaining suits" - low-high tells "I have a different number" You can't disallow that ! That's real info. Of course, when it is impossible to have the same number, the sense of the signal must be something else, e.g. lavinthal (exactly the same way as calling for an "impossible" suit playing normal attitude signals will often be lavinthalish). You can't disallow that ! That's bridge logic. The "encryption" comes from the fact that, when you have an even number of cards between the suit led and trumps, it is indeed impossible to have the same number of cars in the two remaining suits. Best regards Alain From larry at charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 28 11:43:59 2006 From: larry at charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Fri Jul 28 11:46:17 2006 Subject: [blml] Borderline rulings References: Message-ID: <000901c6b22a$62cd9a90$70e987d9@p41600> Also I find difficulty fathoming that 13 spades can't be agreed as a strong two (only 10 hcp) whereas AKJ-to-10,Q,Q,Q can be (14hcp and RO25). larry > The strength/weakness of the hand. OK a somewhat nebulous concept but > if one polled a group of reasonable players as to whether > AT98xx,QT98x,x,x was stronger or weaker than QJ,QJ,Kxxx,xxxxx one would > not expect much variation in the answers. > > > I don't suppose a large number of people will be interested, > > but the regulation goes into effect next month? I'm curious > > to know if and how the limits of 3rd seat 1-level openers > > are tested in the EBU. > > Oh - You mean the new regulations! Those are, quite blatantly, illegal. > > 11 C 9 Minimum opening bid strength in first and second seat > The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18. However a > partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand > is at least Rule of 18. > 11 C 10 Minimum opening bid strength in third and fourth seat > The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is 8 HCP. > > The wording elsewhere has also been changed such that judgement/personal > evaluation methods (however reasonable and explainable) are no longer > permitted with regard to the above. > > The EBULC are, IMO deliberately, mocking the laws of bridge. For them > even to contemplate the idea that AT987xx,KT98xx,-,- is a hand that is > not within "a king of average strength" is simply too stupid to be > accidental. It's good for a grand opposite x,A76xx,Kxx,Qxxx and under > current regs might be bid 1S-1N-2H-3H-4C-4H-4S-5H-6D-7H. Under the new > regs the bidding goes P-P-P-P (OK I know the opps will likely open but > we should not have to *rely* on them doing so in order to bid our grand > slams!). > > Tim From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 28 11:48:08 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Jul 28 13:15:01 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@pop.ulb.ac.be><35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be><20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl><6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net><6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net><35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be><5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060728102200.020a1430@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701c6b235$b2717a70$cc9b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "If a man does not keep pace with his companions perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away." (Thoreau) -------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\x/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > You can't disallow that ! That's real info. > ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\x/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > > You can't disallow that ! That's bridge logic. > +=+ I am not so sure about "can't". And why not, anyway? Isn't the SO entitled to use its own judgement as to what is desirable in its own competitions? ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Jul 28 11:40:34 2006 From: grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri Jul 28 13:15:04 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@pop.ulb.ac.be><35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be><20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl><6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net><6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net><35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be><5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060728102200.020a1430@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c6b235$b187ddc0$cc9b87d9@yourtkrv58tbs0> from Grattan Endicott grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk [also gesta@tiscali.co.uk] ************************************ "If a man does not keep pace with his companions perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away." (Thoreau) -------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: ; Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) > > The "encryption" comes from the fact that, when > you have an even number of cards between the > suit led and trumps, it is indeed impossible to have > the same number of cars in the two remaining suits. > +=+ There just isn't a vehicle for it? :-) +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Jul 28 15:36:38 2006 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri Jul 28 15:38:34 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> References: <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl><6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop .starpower.net><6.1.1.1.0 .20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net> <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> Message-ID: <44CA12E6.4050207@meteo.fr> Herman De wael a ?crit : > > Hello Eric, > > answers in between your text - see below: > > Herman De Wael > Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium > www.hdw.be > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > > I'll try again. > > I'm playing standard signals. At partner's first discard, he throws > the S6. Does this encourage or discourage spades? Both I and declarer > must decide by figuring out, based on the auction, the play to that > point, and the contents of our hands, what partner's original spade > holding was. Either of us might have the information with which to do > so, and thus read the signal accurately, or might not. > > I'm playing heart-parity encrypted signals. At partner's first > discard, he throws the S2. Does this encourage or discourage > spades? Both I and declarer must decide by figuring out, based on the > auction, the play to that point, and the contents of our hands, what > partner's original heart holding was. Either of us might have the > information with which to do so, and thus read the signal accurately, > or might not. > > So where's the significant difference? > > HDW: If you deliberately try to make the 2 systems seem as close to one another as possible, then of course there is not much of a difference. > The difference occurs when you put the S2 in both sentences. Now the meaning of the first S2 is clear - it's a small one. By throwing the S6 in stead, partner is hoping that enough of the smaller spades are visible, so that you won't be fooled. In any case, the first example is not "encrypted". There is sometimes not enough information available (a key) so that the meaning is not immediately clear. In the second case, that is also true, but the hidden information (the key) is specifically selected to be something which is available to partner, not to declarer. > > I really believe there is a significant difference. > > >I'm not coming out in favour of encrypted signals, nor of their ban, > >but I just wanted to say that this is a definite class of things, of > >which I am quite confident that I'll know one when I come accross one. > > > >I have thought about playing the following methods: after the lead, we > >make an approximation of declarer's points, and then we calculate > >which of us has the highest number of points: that player then makes > >upside-down signals (or even worse: deliberately wrong ones - without > >telling declarer), while the other only signals truely. > > > >I believe such methods to be encrypted, therefor illegal under WBF > >policy - and I don't mind them being so, as I would not like it if > >they did it to me. > > I don't see what outright cheating, as suggested by Herman's > parenthetical, has to do with this discussion. One can agree to cheat > by using deliberately mislead signals without telling declarer no > matter what one's signalling methods are. > > HDW: indeed, the parenthesis should have been omitted - that is cheating and we all know it. Let's concentrate on the method under which we tell declarer, when asked about signalling "stronger opponent signals true, other upside-down". > > And as to the legal method itself, what's the problem? It will work > for your side when declarer has what you think he has and your partner > is on the same wavelength, work for declarer when he has concealed > extras or is understrength for his bidding, and lead you over the cliff > when you and your partner have different ideas about the opposing > auction showed. It's hardly unfair (I'd be delighted to see someone > try to play it against me in competition); where's the case for banning it? > > I believe it is unfair - that's enough for me. As to the case for banning it - let's leave that to the lawgivers. Our discussion was primarily about your fear that some quite normal things would be banned under a poorly written definition. > the notion of "unfair" is subjective. "lawgivers" may ban whatever they want, especially what they believe unfair, what they would not like to be done to them, what maybe other would think to be intrisic to the game of bridge, as the power of hidden hands. in this discussion, some people don't accept that bridge is a game of incomplete information and that both sides are not at the same level of difficulty in the sense that each player doesn't see the same cards at the same time. it results that it is unfair to use this inequality as maybe it is unfair for a defenser to pick declarer's stiff king behind his AQ, because the declarer is not in a position to do the same thing when the position is inverted. my own subjective view is that the notion of hidden hands is at the heart of the game, that every player uses it in different ways according to the conditions of a deal. moreover i think it would be carelesness for a player not to work the hardest possible to take the maximal profit of it, one way when playing at the table, and also when training and devising strategy. full disclosure is no more a problem for what you call encrypted signals than for any partnership agreements: what you have agreed with partner before starting to play, you repeat exactly to opponents, each time they need to know. i am puzzled to read that in some situations you would have to disclose something you infer from your own cards. maybe one part of the problem is that many bridge players are very lazy and, in order to remain competitive, it is easier to forbid others to work than to work by oneself. i must also admit that in order to recruit thousands of players, it is essential to present bridge as an activity of the same level of difficulty as its rivals, like bingo. jpr > Herman. > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 28 16:01:35 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 28 16:04:21 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <200607261522.IAA16081@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200607261522.IAA16081@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728095433.02c09eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:35 AM 7/26/06, Adam wrote: >But I also wanted to ask: You seem to be making an assertion that the >ACBL bans whatever systems it feels like and just sticks a >"destructive" label on it to try to justify their actions. You're not >merely asserting that they have the potential to do this, you're >asserting that they actually do. > >So no doubt you can provide some examples of them doing this? I'd start with the prohibition against using a 1NT opening that shows a balanced hand in a range that starts below 10 HCP. After that we could talk about the ACBL's much-discussed view of psychs and "psychic controls". And if we include examples of regulations made in the last couple of decades that have since been dropped (or are just being ignored), we could have a real field day. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 28 16:30:21 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 28 16:43:52 2006 Subject: [blml] Skip bids In-Reply-To: <4D556EBE-F8B0-4767-B85A-0C7289E212DB@rochester.rr.com> References: <200607182235.k6IMZelj019905@cfa.harvard.edu> <44BEE928.2030803@cfa.harvard.edu> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726110703.030890f0@pop.starpower.net> <684D6AD1-EF85-427C-BE5F-132DAC43BE8B@rochester.rr.com> <6.1.1.1.0.20060727110446.02c061e0@pop.starpower.net> <4D556EBE-F8B0-4767-B85A-0C7289E212DB@rochester.rr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728101117.02c0c0a0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:34 AM 7/27/06, Ed wrote: >On Jul 27, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >>The current problem in the ACBL is that *their* view has not been >>sufficiently well disseminated, and many, if not most, ACBL players >>think that the ACBL has adopted the European approach. > >For the first part of that, the ACBL are at fault. But players must >take some responsibility, too. Why the Hell would anyone assume the >ACBL would do things the way the Europeans do? :-) I'm just guessing, but I suspect it starts with the fact that the Europeans adopted bidding boxes as the norm for serious play well before North America did (when bidding boxes first came to ACBL-land, we were "early adopters" and found ourselves ordering them from European suppliers). By the time bidding boxes became widely used here, the European procedure for using the stop card already existed and was generally known (at least some of those European bidding boxes even came with a description of the procedure, printed, IIRC, on the back of the stop card), so ACBL players, for lack of any local guidance, naturally started following it. By the time the ACBL formulated and announced its rather different policy and procedure for stop card use, those previous habits had already become widely ingrained. Real-world experience makes it clear that it's a lot easier to get a new procedure adopted and used when no previously established procedure existed than when you're trying to replace one that is already widespread with something new. The ACBL may well have thought they were doing the former when in fact they were attempting the latter. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 28 16:42:20 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 28 16:43:55 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728103436.02dad120@pop.starpower.net> At 06:58 PM 7/27/06, richard.hills wrote: >But, as Ton has noted, this whole debate is moot, as >sponsoring organisations have clear authority to >regulate via Law 40D to prohibit "Encrypted Signals". The problem -- I believe it was Herman who first articulated it in this forum -- is that if they choose to exercise that authority, they take on an obligation to define precisely what an "encrypted signal" is. "We can't define it, but you may not do it" just doesn't cut it. Unfortunately, that would appear to be exactly what some SOs have adopted as their stated policy. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 28 16:47:01 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri Jul 28 16:49:58 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card) In-Reply-To: <25c1d414208121d2ba3c99d5538b56aa@smtp.realdsl.be> References: <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> <20060719115048.A14AE173E6C@poczta.interia.pl> <6.1.1.1.0.20060725165303.02e42050@pop.starpower.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20060726164917.02c6bbf0@pop.starpower.net> <35f04034241d0bfb61ac19bee9348fe6@smtp.realdsl.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20060727190345.02776060@pop.ulb.ac.be> <25c1d414208121d2ba3c99d5538b56aa@smtp.realdsl.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728104307.02c4a410@pop.starpower.net> At 03:17 AM 7/28/06, hermandw wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > At 11:59 27/07/2006 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: FTR, none of what follows was written by me. I disavow any knowledge of "Vinge signals" (beyond what I've read in this thread), am not at all familiar with them, and hold no opinions about them. > Mine is that other methods transmit coded information, giving > defenders an > advantage that declarer will never have, yet are allowed. > > Take Vinje pattern signals, for example. On the first trump trick, > you will > signal "even" if you hold three even suits, and "odd" if you have > three odd > suits (if you have two of each, call the TD). > Say that spades are trumps, as they so often are, and the second > round of > hearts is ruffed. > Say you have two spades and signal "even". Now, in you have an odd > number > of hearts (which only you and partner know), this tells all about > the other > two suits ... but not to declarer. > > And if you give diamond count (the highest uncounted plain suit) while > following suit in spades, you're by the same token giving encrypted > count > in clubs, so that your signal in clubs may have some other > signification. > > In both those cases, Herman's equity argument (sometimes declarer > will know > what defenders have some difficulty to know) doesn't apply. Yet both > these > signalling methods are allowed. > > Why ? > >First of all. Are they? >Maybe they are. >And why? because they do not transmit encrypted information, but real >info. >"I have three odd-numbered suits" is information that is "real", not >encrypted. >The point becomes unclear when only using it when declarer ruffs. > >Now the information becomes "I have odd numbers of diamonds and clubs >if I have an odd number of hearts and vice versa". This is encrypted >information and would, if I were directing, be judged illegal (well, HUM). > >So you are starting with a wrong assumption, Alain, that Vinje signals >are allowed! > >Herman. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 28 17:42:28 2006 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri Jul 28 17:34:56 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728095433.02c09eb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <200607261522.IAA16081@mailhub.irvine.com> <200607261522.IAA16081@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20060728173406.020b5860@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:01 28/07/2006 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 11:35 AM 7/26/06, Adam wrote: > > >I'd start with the prohibition against using a 1NT opening that shows a >balanced hand in a range that starts below 10 HCP. After that we could >talk about the ACBL's much-discussed view of psychs and "psychic controls". IBTD. The main problem, with psychs and psychic controls, is that they interfer with obligations of disclosure. When playing systemic psyches (as in original R/S), your openings are in fact in the range 3-to-6 or 11-to-20 (or whatever), and the 1/1 and 2/1 responses are no more forcing, and systemic psychers do not alert this. Also, it is extremely difficult for a pair of frequent psychers, even the most honest ones, to state where they might be psyching or not (and therefore be wary of partner). Whether this is disrupting enough to disallow fresquent psyches is another point, but the case is very different from mini-notrumps, Wagner , CRaSh or other destructive conventions. It is more like a pair playing 3/5 leads but allowing themselves to lead the second highest from four small against low-level contracts, while not telling this to their opponents. I would understand some SO disallowing this. Best regards, Alain From adam at irvine.com Fri Jul 28 17:37:54 2006 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri Jul 28 17:39:50 2006 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:01:35 EDT." <6.1.1.1.0.20060728095433.02c09eb0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200607281524.IAA05810@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > At 11:35 AM 7/26/06, Adam wrote: > > >But I also wanted to ask: You seem to be making an assertion that the > >ACBL bans whatever systems it feels like and just sticks a > >"destructive" label on it to try to justify their actions. You're not > >merely asserting that they have the potential to do this, you're > >asserting that they actually do. > > > >So no doubt you can provide some examples of them doing this? > > I'd start with the prohibition against using a 1NT opening that shows a > balanced hand in a range that starts below 10 HCP. After that we could > talk about the ACBL's much-discussed view of psychs and "psychic > controls". And if we include examples of regulations made in the last > couple of decades that have since been dropped (or are just being > ignored), we could have a real field day. That isn't what I asked for. You've provided examples of cases where the ACBL has banned things you think they shouldn't have. But what I'm looking for is: is there anything they have banned, and publicly given "destructive" as the reason for banning them, when it is not reasonable to think that this is a legitimate reason? Your accusation, in your previous post, was that "ACBL uses 'destructive system' ... as an undefined, essentially meaningless designation that in reality boils down to nothing more than a subjective decision by some decision-maker(s) that can be applied to whatever they choose without any need for any kind of objective justification". To justify this accusation, you not only have to give an example where the ACBL has banned something you think should be allowed, or that they have banned something you think isn't "destructive" in some sense. You have to give an example they've banned something that they cannot reasonably think is "destructive" in any way, but where they've called it that anyway just to justify banning something that they've apparently banned for some totally unrelated reason. That's what you're accusing them of. So no doubt you can provide some examples of them doing this? -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 28 20:15:20 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:15:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <200607281524.IAA05810@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200607281524.IAA05810@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728140618.02b05eb0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:37 AM 7/28/06, Adam wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > At 11:35 AM 7/26/06, Adam wrote: > > > > >But I also wanted to ask: You seem to be making an assertion that the > > >ACBL bans whatever systems it feels like and just sticks a > > >"destructive" label on it to try to justify their actions. You're not > > >merely asserting that they have the potential to do this, you're > > >asserting that they actually do. > > > > > >So no doubt you can provide some examples of them doing this? > > > > I'd start with the prohibition against using a 1NT opening that > shows a > > balanced hand in a range that starts below 10 HCP. After that we > could > > talk about the ACBL's much-discussed view of psychs and "psychic > > controls". And if we include examples of regulations made in the last > > couple of decades that have since been dropped (or are just being > > ignored), we could have a real field day. > >That isn't what I asked for. You've provided examples of cases where >the ACBL has banned things you think they shouldn't have. But what >I'm looking for is: is there anything they have banned, and publicly >given "destructive" as the reason for banning them, when it is not >reasonable to think that this is a legitimate reason? Well, I did give examples of things the ACBL has both labeled "destructive" and banned. I may be misimputing causality here, but I haven't seen any reason other than "they're destructive" cited to justify the ban. As to whether it is reasonable to think that this is a legimate reason, I suppose that depends on whether you think they are in fact "destructive". I don't, but that's just MHO. As Douglas Ross likes to say, "According to the ACBL, if you open 1NT vulnerable against not with a balanced eight-count, you're taking unfair advantage of your opponents." Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jul 28 20:26:29 2006 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:26:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20060728173406.020b5860@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200607261522.IAA16081@mailhub.irvine.com> <200607261522.IAA16081@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20060728173406.020b5860@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728141621.02b0d9d0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:42 AM 7/28/06, Alain wrote: >At 10:01 28/07/2006 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>I'd start with the prohibition against using a 1NT opening that shows >>a balanced hand in a range that starts below 10 HCP. After that we >>could talk about the ACBL's much-discussed view of psychs and >>"psychic controls". > >IBTD. The main problem, with psychs and psychic controls, is that they >interfer with obligations of disclosure. When playing systemic psyches >(as in original R/S), your openings are in fact in the range 3-to-6 or >11-to-20 (or whatever), and the 1/1 and 2/1 responses are no more >forcing, and systemic psychers do not alert this. Also, it is >extremely difficult for a pair of frequent psychers, even the most >honest ones, to state where they might be psyching or not (and >therefore be wary of partner). IBTD with Alain. Back when they were still legal, I played systemic psyches (which are not really "psychs" at all) with "psychic controls". My openings were in fact in the range 0-5 or 13+, and the 1/1 and 2/1 responses were not forcing if partner held 0-5. All of this was regularly, properly and fully disclosed to my opponents. Alain appears to be asserting that were such methods were to become legal and I started playing them again, making me one of those "systemic psychers" he refers to, that I would not alert my opponents. That could be taken as a serious insult. >Whether this is disrupting enough to disallow fresquent psyches is >another point, but the case is very different from mini-notrumps, >Wagner , CRaSh or other destructive conventions. It is more like a >pair playing 3/5 leads but allowing themselves to lead the second >highest from four small against low-level contracts, while not telling >this to their opponents. I would understand some SO disallowing this. If you have any agreements that you deliberately conceal from your opponents, you are violating the laws of the game, period. It doesn't take "some SO" to make that illegal. It is cheating. If we banned things because some people who use them cheat, we would perforce ban everything. Eric Landau ehaa at starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 From richard.willey at gmail.com Sun Jul 30 00:43:19 2006 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:43:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Encrypted signals In-Reply-To: <200607281524.IAA05810@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <6.1.1.1.0.20060728095433.02c09eb0@pop.starpower.net> <200607281524.IAA05810@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0607291541mcf8d2b8o5855e167bbe94b24@mail.gmail.com> > To justify this accusation, you not only have to give an example where > the ACBL has banned something you think should be allowed, or that > they have banned something you think isn't "destructive" in some > sense. You have to give an example they've banned something that they > cannot reasonably think is "destructive" in any way, but where they've > called it that anyway just to justify banning something that they've > apparently banned for some totally unrelated reason. That's what > you're accusing them of. > > So no doubt you can provide some examples of them doing this? > > -- Adam >From my perspective, the most obvious example is the ACBL decision to ban MOSCITO by refusing to sanction any defense to MOSCITO type transfer openings. Modern MOSCITO uses transfer openings 1D = 4+ Hearts 1H = 4+ Spades 1S = Unbalanced with 4+ Diamonds The scheme is used for a number of reasons, the most important being the desire to align the frequency of the hand type with the level of the opening. (Playing MOSCITO, there are LOTS more hands where you systemically show a Heart suit than a Diamonds suit) Being able to right side the most frequent contract after a first step relay is also nice. The ACBL Conventions Committe refuses to approve ANY defense to a 1D opening showing 4+ Hearts. Its particularly amusing to contrast the licensing requries in the US and the EBU. MOSCITO isn't in widespread use in either area. No one has much experiencing defending against the methods. Members of the ACBL Conventions Committee claim that its impossible to construct and adequate defense and state that they will not allow the method to be used in North America. The British looked things over briefly, said "what's the porblem" and licensed the openings in the next release of the Orange book... -- "The chill, malevolent eyes of the plastic flamingos on the lawn tracked his every move, and their sinister painted beaks whispered of the black and terrible voids between the stars where even now, Elvis might still be alive"